Wednesday, June 3, 2009


Donate to DogsBite.org
Please donate to support our work

DogsBite.org is a 501(c)(3) tax-exempt public charity organization. Learn more »


posted by   |  permalink  |  17 comments  | email  |icon blog rss  |icon comment rss 

17 comments:

Anonymous Anonymous  |  6/03/2009 4:46 AM  |  Flag  
Hmmm...The big three states that have anti-BSL provisions lead. They also lead in human deaths from Pit Bulls. I think there is a coincidence!

How much does this silliness cost?

Anonymous Trigger  |  6/03/2009 5:02 PM  |  Flag  
Dan Savage Today:

"A man lets his two pit bulls run off leash in front of a high school on a Sunday morning, in violation of city leash laws, and a passing cop stops and tells him to leash his dogs. One of the dogs—only nine months old, but weighing in at 72 pounds and already pitugly—charges the officer... and the officer pulls out his service revolver and shoots the dog in the head. The dog lived and the dog's owner wants the city of Lancaster, PA, to pay the vet bills. Nope, says the city, our officers don't have to wait until they're actually being mauled to shoot a threatening dog."

http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2009/06/03/im-on-the-cops-side

Blogger bitbypit  |  6/03/2009 11:25 PM  |  Flag  
On the day of the release of this report, the following incidences were reported: 1.) Indianapolis police were forced to shoot and kill two pit bulls that attacked a woman. 2.) Lee County, FL deputies shot a pit bull dead after the dog attacked a deputy 3.) A neighbor in Vernon, VT shot a pit bull after it came onto his property 4.) Champaign, IL police shot a pit bull that tried to attack a child.

Blogger Dog_Fighting_promotes_violent_crime  |  6/04/2009 12:28 AM  |  Flag  
PLEASE VOTE ON THIS!

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/opinion/todaysbuzz/wednesday/sfl-dog-ban-pitbull-buzz-stein-m060309,0,190485.story

Ban pit bulls - they don't belong here
When you talking about pit bulls, the dog is the problem. They should be banned, pure and simple, in urban areas like South Florida.

By Gary Stein | South Florida Sun-Sentinel
June 3, 2009

Please spare me the typical animal lovers cliche about pit bulls, Nicole.

Don't give me the blather about "It's not the dog that's bad, it's the owner's fault. A good owner means a good dog."

I will grant you that some -- probably many -- pit bull owners are mongrels themselves, and don't care that their dog is terrorizing the neighborhood. Bad human being, bad owner, bad dog. I agree.

But when you talking about pit bulls, the dog IS the problem. They should be banned, pure and simple, in urban areas like South Florida.

PLEASE VOTE YES!
Should pit bulls be banned as pets?
Yes, they are dangerous animals, pure and simple

CAST YOUR VOTE NOW!!

ALSO WRITE TO THE EDITOR AND LET THEM KNOW JUST HOW VICIOUS PIT BULLS ARE!!
http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/opinion/sfl-letterseditor,0,4645389.customform

Anonymous mrs.Poodle  |  6/04/2009 3:02 AM  |  Flag  
Good work!

Blogger Honesty Helps  |  6/04/2009 9:51 AM  |  Flag  
I have been voting and writing comments. I am noticing the organized efforts of the pit nutters in the article comments section. I want to organize so we can cover comments. Newspapers use the comments to determine if stories are worth writing about. The more comments the more they accept stories. Reporters will use info they find on comments as well. So I feel it is important for us to do the same as the pit nutters. If anyone else wants to do this with me, let me know here. I plan to organize it through my blog with morning updates for us to go to.

Blogger Dog_Fighting_promotes_violent_crime  |  6/05/2009 7:37 AM  |  Flag  
What is even more sad, there is this huge movement to "rehabilitate" pit bulls exposed to dog fighting or has a history of attacking. This is the most insane thing I ever heard of. As though those dogs were the only victimized animals on earth-they don't even bat an eyelash about the approximately 20 million dogs, cats, kittens and puppies, most NEVER exposed to any dog fighting, NEVER bitten anybody, perfectly adoptable pets-are slaughtered in dog pounds every year costing tax payers $2,500,000,000.00 a year-that is $2.5 BILLION DOLLARS A YEAR-to kill unwanted pets. These pit bull zealots are full of it. They don't even bat an eyelash about this. They just want to save dogs that have a history of violence. In other words, a pit bull has more rights than the safety of children.

Blogger Dog_Fighting_promotes_violent_crime  |  6/05/2009 7:39 AM  |  Flag  
""Hmmm...The big three states that have anti-BSL provisions lead. They also lead in human deaths from Pit Bulls. I think there is a coincidence!"

WHAT STATES ARE THESE? I NEED TO KNOW. I AM CONTACT FLORIDA STATE REPRESENTATIVES TO GET DANGEROUS DOG LEGISLATION REFILED.

Anonymous Trigger  |  6/05/2009 8:46 AM  |  Flag  
The leading states are the following: California (37), Texas (32), Florida (24), Illinois (23).

CA does not have an "anti-BSL" law. I believe it was 2006 that CA passed a law that allowed "breed-specific" spay neuter laws. Banning a breed or declaring a breed "dangerous" is not legal in the state, but a pit bull sterilization law is. Texas, Florida and Illinois on the other hand each have state laws that prohibit "all" breed-specific laws. One has to imagine that by all conservative estimates, the report shows 10-15 times LESS than what is actual. It would be fascinating to know what the "actual" numbers are, which could only be obtained by filing an insane number of public record requests.

Additionally, it is my understanding that when the state of Ohio passed its pit bull regulation law, this was partly based on the evidence of the huge number of police officers forced to shoot dangerous pit bulls. If you could some how find out the number of pit bulls being shot by law enforcement officers in the state of Florida, the evidence would be convincing to legislators indeed.

Blogger Honesty Helps  |  6/05/2009 7:04 PM  |  Flag  
California passed a law AGAINST a ban on any breed, however they did pass a law giving cities/counties the ability to pass "dangerous" dog ordinances geared toward certain breeds. This is how LA came up with mandatory speuter for all breeds. In CA, the places that have taken up this law are not discriminating as to pits, they are making it all breeds. California has always been at the top on dog related fatalities. I live there and there are pits everywhere, literally. It's hard to imagine if you've never been to Southern CA. Most "rescues" won't take them so the shelters are full. Pits without a history, it's a horror story especially when "No Kill" is yelling at them to not kill the pits. And not to temperament test the pits, just adopt them out if they are friendly. Honest, people, I saw the guru of "No Kill" in print saying that. Good news is that the Terminator Governor may be repealing the Hayden Act on holding times. This means that Fluffy may be able to stay longer because Spike can be put down earlier. The Hayden did a lot to promote the pits in the shelters with the lengthy hold times.

Blogger Dog_Fighting_promotes_violent_crime  |  6/05/2009 8:49 PM  |  Flag  
Ohh that's a great point! i wonder if major counties in florida will release that kind of information to me-the percentage of pitbulls killed by police as opposed to other breeds. I wonder if they keep those stats, well, it's food for thought and I can ask :-) Great suggestion!!

Blogger Honesty Helps  |  6/06/2009 10:02 AM  |  Flag  
I've been asked to clarify my previous comment about LA speuter.

When the LA Council took up the subject of using this new law to pass mandatory speuter for pits, rotties, etc. they got into a debate about discriminating by breed, which was the spirit of the State law. But by the letter of the State law, they were able to pass mandatory for all breeds, whether a dangerous breed or not. They thought they would kill two birds with one law, the dangerous and the overpopulation. Does that make sense? San Bernardino City did the same thing and Riverside County has basically done the same. When the State tried to pass AB 1634 it would call for across the board spay/neuter and passed in a very watered down version. Still we had the other one, I forgot the call number, that they are using. At least this way the pit nutters can't complain except about their civil rights.

Blogger Dog_Fighting_promotes_violent_crime  |  6/06/2009 12:04 PM  |  Flag  
I'm not aware of any constitution writing that dogs have any rights. If people say it's "unconstitutional" to keep pit bulls, then being an avid insect collect myself, I SHOULD have the right to collect any stick bug or cockroach or spider from anywhere around the earth. But I don't because there are LAWS AGAINST keeping certain insects. So if pit bull zealots can have their pitties based on their "rights" then why can't I order exotic insects because they are PETS TOO.

Anonymous Anonymous  |  6/07/2009 2:04 PM  |  Flag  
I'm certain the frequency of pit bull shootings and attacks by pit bulls are considerably under reported by the media.

Years ago, I worked on a medic rig in Oakland, Ca, and was sent to a staging area for multiple victims of a pit bull attack. Thanks to the immediate intervention of Oakland PD, the victims escaped serious injury and were not transported by ambulance, but two pit bulls were shot by officers. The story did NOT appear in the Oakland Tribune or any other media outlets.

The story of police or citizen vs. pit bull is so common that it essentially requires a slow news day for some media outlets to consider it news worthy at all. Many editors live by the axiom that 'Dog Bites Man' is not news, and fail to differentiate between just another bite case and the vastly more serious injuries inflicted by pit bulls, as well as the extreme force required to intercede. While it's impossible to know the exact number of pit bull attacks, my own experience leads me to believe the available media accounts are only fractionally representative of the issue.

My "Personal Best Pit Bull Day" was in the East Bay, where I responded to two pit attacks in one shift, and at one time my unit and another unit were both traveling Code 3 for pit bull attacks in two separate incidences, at two different locations. Imagine your city filled with sirens, because each incident requires at least one PD unit, (there will usually be two or three patrol units if available, and a senior officer for a weapons discharge incident) an engine company from fire, and a medic unit/ambulance. For these two simultaneous calls, there was a minimum of 8 units rolling Code 3 (lights and sirens) all because of pit bulls.

If we can require m/c helmets because of the medical costs to taxpayers, what’s the hold up with a pit bull ban? At the minimum, the legislature should require pit bull incidents be broken out from general statistics so they can begin to understand the weight of the problem. (It’s not just another “Public Service Call” for PD, and checking the box ‘trauma’ just lumps these in with road rash from falling off a skate board – depending on the local system.) Until reporting requirements are overhauled, the legislature can’t begin to get the matter in hand – depending on whether or not an editor thinks it is news, or the news day was too busy to report yet another pit bull shooting or mauling. I'm convinced the legislature has no idea about the actual frequency and seriousness of the issue. If anyone thinks they have a reliable measure from just what is available through the media, they're missing too much information for a fair consideration.

What's more, consider the reality that many pit attack victims are transported by private vehicle, especially when the victim is the owner or a family member. No police - no ambulance - no story. Factor in hospital privacy laws, along with misrepresentation by the owner/victim about what happened, or misrepresentation about the breed involved, and the statistical reality is very well hidden.

Anonymous Anonymous  |  6/10/2009 4:44 PM  |  Flag  
Anonymous medic, your info was very intreresting!

It would be great to see emergency personell relating their pit bull reports here, the ones that never made it into the media

Anonymous Anonymous  |  6/11/2009 12:02 AM  |  Flag  
http://www.lakecountrysun.com/news/get-news.asp?id=7742&catid=1&cpg=get-news.asp

"That's typical of this (breed)," he commented.
"Anytime you have to shoot a dog three times with double-ought buck shot, that's an indication of how vicious they are," he said.

Anonymous Trigger  |  6/14/2009 9:13 PM  |  Flag  
The City of Rochester, NY just came out with a report -- 22 dogs fired upon in 2008, "many are pit bulls" (about 4 out of 5)
---
JUNE 14, 2009 -- "The number of dogs shot at by Rochester police in 2008, when 22 dogs were targeted, was nearly double the 12 dogs fired upon in 2004 but about half of the 41 reportedly shot at in 2000. Eight dogs were fired upon in the first four months of 2009. The number of dogs killed each year has remained steady at about six. Nearly four out of every five dogs shot at by police were pit bulls. About a third of the incidents occurred while police were executing a search warrant in which they forced entry and were confronted by aggressive dogs, according to the reports."

The DBO report only logs 2 of these shootings, about 16-18 times less than actual.
----
http://tinyurl.com/m6rv9j

Post a Comment »

archives: