What Should Be Done About Pit Bull Owners?

Bob, this I understand, totally!

Maybe that's who we should be going after and NOT the breeds, though?
Banning a breed isn't going to solve the problem. If it's not a loose pit bull, then it'll be a loose other breed of dog that will be just as likely to hurt another dog and a breed probably more prone to hurting humans than pit bulls.


It's sad that nothing will be done until someone gets hurt. That's the passive/aggressive nature of what's important to those with power.
Then when someone gets hurt, the owners MIGHT get sued or might get a slap on the hand and the dog(s) will ultimately suffer with their lives because of it. And then a breed is taken down and the media BS goes on...

It's horrible.

ORIGINAL: Dog_ma

Is putting pressure on local elected officials a lost art? If a neighborhood of kids is being threatened by large dogs on a continued basis, why on earth don't parents mobilize and march on down to city hall to raise a fuss? AC will step up if pressure comes from above. Find one elected official who is willing to make "Saving the Children!" a PR move, and work it.

There is way too much learned helplessness among the human population.

You live in a funny place, Bob. Human aggressive pitbulls are adopted out of shelters, and dog aggressive pitbulls are allowed to roam the streets to the point of a BUS STOP being moved. Strange priorities in that town. (And I'm serious! I'm not being snotty. You guys have a dog problem, and it has nothing to do with breed. It has to do with management.)

oooh! This is probably THE BEST post in this thread so far.
Hey, I'll march with ya. Maybe your law enforcement agents will have some donuts and coffee with mine and they can gather some help to take care of the owners of the off leash shih-tzu up the street...


It's a sad day when you have to hold the hands of the AC and/or police and walk them to the problem to get them to do anything about it.

ORIGINAL: Dog_ma

Is putting pressure on local elected officials a lost art?  If a neighborhood of kids is being threatened by large dogs on a continued basis, why on earth don't parents mobilize and march on down to city hall to raise a fuss?  AC will step up if pressure comes from above.  Find one elected official who is willing to make "Saving the Children!" a PR move, and work it. 

There is way too much learned helplessness among the human population.

You live in a funny place, Bob.  Human aggressive pitbulls are adopted out of shelters, and dog aggressive pitbulls are allowed to roam the streets to the point of a BUS STOP being moved.  Strange priorities in that town.  (And I'm serious!  I'm not being snotty.  You guys have a dog problem, and it has nothing to do with breed. It has to do with management.)

I live in the fastest growing  county in the last 10 years or so, in the US. The government can't keep up with the growth. In addition we have had a  very large influx of  illegal immigrants and  they don't believe in following any laws they don't like. ( you know, the people that do jobs that nobody else wants to do). If they come into the country by breaking laws, do you actually think they are going to be bothered by the threat of some AC officer coming to their home. Cities like Atlanta, New York, New Haven, Newark ( where the 3 college kids were executed last week), are all paying the price for allowing people to enter the country by running across the border.  The last thing the local police are worried about is some dog running loose down the street in some subdivision. The only time they will respond, is after someone is attacked.

ORIGINAL: cyclefiend2000

I think what it says is that there is a small amount of possible error, which occurs in most data collection protocols, but it is the best data we have at the moment.

you must not have read it, because that isnt what it says at all.

it recognizes the flaws in their statistical data and recommends other alternatives to breed specific ordinances.

I read it and that is what it said, that some amount of inaccuracy in the report is due to some breeds not being listed accurately.  It did also go on to state that the bulk of the deaths caused by dog attacks were due to Pit Bulls and Rottweilers. The other issue is that these are only the fatal attacks. Also, the conclusions are not from the CDC, but from the Jorunal of Vet Med Association, which is really their "opinion" of the CDC data.

Conclusions—Although fatal attacks on humans
appear to be a breed-specific problem (pit bull-type
dogs and Rottweilers), other breeds may bite and
cause fatalities at higher rates. Because of difficulties
inherent in determining a dog's breed with certainty,
enforcement of breed-specific ordinances raises constitutional
and practical issues. Fatal attacks represent
a small proportion of dog bite injuries to humans and,
therefore, should not be the primary factor driving
public policy concerning dangerous dogs. Many practical
alternatives to breed-specific ordinances exist and
hold promise for prevention of dog

Regarding the cost of dog bites to the insurance companies, here are the latest available statistics.



According to the Insurance Information Institute, dog bites accounted for about one-quarter of all claims on homeowner's insurance, costing more than $321 million in 2003. In 2002, the latest year for which numbers are available, the average claim for a dog bite was $16,600.

Dog attacks account for one-third of all liability claims on homeowners' insurance policies. According to the Western Insurance Information Service, the insurance industry paid out more than $1 billion in dog-bite claims in 1998 alone.

ORIGINAL: Bobsk8

ORIGINAL: Dog_ma

Is putting pressure on local elected officials a lost art?  If a neighborhood of kids is being threatened by large dogs on a continued basis, why on earth don't parents mobilize and march on down to city hall to raise a fuss?  AC will step up if pressure comes from above.  Find one elected official who is willing to make "Saving the Children!" a PR move, and work it. 

There is way too much learned helplessness among the human population.

You live in a funny place, Bob.  Human aggressive pitbulls are adopted out of shelters, and dog aggressive pitbulls are allowed to roam the streets to the point of a BUS STOP being moved.  Strange priorities in that town.  (And I'm serious!  I'm not being snotty.  You guys have a dog problem, and it has nothing to do with breed. It has to do with management.)

I live in the fastest growing  county in the last 10 years or so, in the US. The government can't keep up with the growth. In addition we have had a  very large influx of  illegal immigrants and  they don't believe in following any laws they don't like. ( you know, the people that do jobs that nobody else wants to do). If they come into the country by breaking laws, do you actually think they are going to be bothered by the threat of some AC officer coming to their home. Cities like Atlanta, New York, New Haven, Newark ( where the 3 college kids were executed last week), are all paying the price for allowing people to enter the country by running across the border.  The last thing the local police are worried about is some dog running loose down the street in some subdivision. The only time they will respond, is after someone is attacked.

 
Not trying to defend illegal immigrants but if they're illegal, I think the last thing they'd want is to bring any attention to the fact that they're illegal which seriously increases the chances that they'll be caught and deported. Based on my experiences with illegal immigrants, the majority of them are just trying to make a living, they keep to themselves and they don't do anything illegal, well besides the fact that they're here illegally, that would bring attention to themselves. They realize if they do anything illegal and stupid, they might as well call La Migra on themselves.

Dog attacks account for one-third

dog attacks... not pit bull attacks or rottweiller attacks or doberman attacks... dog attacks.

so why wouldn't an insurance company choose not to insure a household with any dogs and instead of specifying breeds?

Based on my experiences with illegal immigrants, the majority of them are just trying to make a living, they keep to themselves and they don't do anything illegal, well besides the fact that they're here illegally, that would bring attention to themselves.

 
(bolded by me)
But they don't pay taxes, for one...not trying to disprove you meilani, just pointing something out.
 
Honestly, in response to the OP, I don't really know what laws/regulations would solve everything...if only it were so simple as to pass a new law that somehow weeded out all the bad guys and left the great PB owners able to own their breed...unfortunately it's much more complicated than that.

ORIGINAL: IrishSetterGrl

Based on my experiences with illegal immigrants, the majority of them are just trying to make a living, they keep to themselves and they don't do anything illegal, well besides the fact that they're here illegally, that would bring attention to themselves.

 
(bolded by me)
But they don't pay taxes, for one...not trying to disprove you meilani, just pointing something out.

Honestly, in response to the OP, I don't really know what laws/regulations would solve everything...if only it were so simple as to pass a new law that somehow weeded out all the bad guys and left the great PB owners able to own their breed...unfortunately it's much more complicated than that.

 
Not to hijack the thread, but they do pay taxes... everytime they buy something they pay taxes. Yeah, it may not be the kind of taxes we get screwed out of when the IRS comes calling in April but they pay them nonetheless. But that's besides the point. While illegal immigrants are a problem, I highly doubt they are a huge cause of irresponsible dog ownership. It's hard enough to find a place to live that will accept dogs if you are a citizen, so I find it hard to believe that illegal immigrants are going to add to the hardship of finding a place to live by taking on dog ownership. Not only that, how many of them are going to take the risk to call attention to themselves by walking with a 60lb aggressive Pit Bull with a huge chain around its' neck? They might as well wear a sign that says "I'm here illegally.. please deport me".

And actually, many illegal immigrants do also file and pay income taxes:
http://www.coxwashington.com/hp/content/reporters/stories/2007/04/17/BC_TAX_ILLEGAL17.html

ORIGINAL: IrishSetterGrl
Honestly, in response to the OP, I don't really know what laws/regulations would solve everything...if only it were so simple as to pass a new law that somehow weeded out all the bad guys and left the great PB owners able to own their breed...unfortunately it's much more complicated than that.

Yes, it is much more complicated. That's why doing something as "simple" as banning a breed will never work. Bad owners of all breeds will only start bringing another breed out in the open as the new "bad dog" and irresponsibility will continue until there's no more dogs left to ban.
When will people (the ones who think breed banning is the solution to "bad dogs and bad people" problems) realize that dogs do not answer for themselves! People are the hierarchy that takes responsibility for the dogs. People have the self awareness. People can look into a mirror and realize that that is their reflection in the mirror. Most dogs cannot. And how DARE people put the responsibility ON the dog. I'm not saying you're doing this Irishsettergrl, I'm saying that the ones pro-BSL ARE.

It makes no sense to me.

When you make a claim about data, such as you have, you have to have some way of proving that you are right and the data is wrong.

 
Bob, there's a difference between "wrong", and "incomplete/inconsistent"... or "limited". By data provided in another post/thread, this person reports the following "data" about his experiences with small dogs:
1- pleasant non-terrier
2 - pleasant terrier
4- unpleasant non-terrier
1 - unpleasant terrier
2 - unpleasant terrier-types - one is a terrier based dog, the other a terrier mix
1 - unpleasant unknown breed
 
All things added, that data equates to 3 out of 4 small terriers/terrier-types he knows are unpleasant = 75%.  5 out of 6 other/unknown small dogs are unpleasant = 83%.  By his reported data, the problem is statistically with Chihuahuas, because two of the 4 unpleasant small dogs he's encountered are Chihuahuas.  Get another 5 people from his neighborhood giving realtively the same assessments, and, by the application of arguments, Chihuahuas should be banned from his neighborhood.  (and, serious limits on viability of the data b/c, this doesn't account for measuring "pleasant versus unpleasant" equally, nor the dogs in the neighborhood that nobody knows about, hiding away unexposed to neighbors in a negative or positive way.)
 
Sorry, it was just too much fun to use this data to exemplify my point.[]

Regarding the cost of dog bites to the insurance companies, here are the latest available statistics.

wrong, your stats are out of date.  You don't provide the source of your quotes, but specifically referencing the Insurance Information Institute in those quotes, here's the latest stats from that same institute, posted just this month:
[linkhttp://www.iii.org/media/hottopics/insurance/dogbite/]http://www.iii.org/media/hottopics/insurance/dogbite/[/link]  It doesn't properly label the age of all the data quoted in article - it's more editorial than anything.  But it is more up to date than your cited quotes.

ORIGINAL: miranadobe

Regarding the cost of dog bites to the insurance companies, here are the latest available statistics.

wrong, your stats are out of date.  You don't provide the source of your quotes, but specifically referencing the Insurance Information Institute in those quotes, here's the latest stats from that same institute, posted just this month:
[linkhttp://www.iii.org/media/hottopics/insurance/dogbite/]http://www.iii.org/media/hottopics/insurance/dogbite/[/link]  It doesn't properly label the age of all the data quoted in article - it's more editorial than anything.  But it is more up to date than your cited quotes.

And it points to the fact that the insurance companies are now paying out much more per claim ( about $5,000 more)  ,  and more total dollars than they did in the data that I first posted.  So your point is????/

ORIGINAL: miranadobe

When you make a claim about data, such as you have, you have to have some way of proving that you are right and the data is wrong.

Bob, there's a difference between "wrong", and "incomplete/inconsistent"... or "limited". By data provided in another post/thread, this person reports the following "data" about his experiences with small dogs:
1- pleasant non-terrier
2 - pleasant terrier
4- unpleasant non-terrier
1 - unpleasant terrier
2 - unpleasant terrier-types - one is a terrier based dog, the other a terrier mix
1 - unpleasant unknown breed

All things added, that data equates to 3 out of 4 small terriers/terrier-types he knows are unpleasant = 75%.  5 out of 6 other/unknown small dogs are unpleasant = 83%.  By his reported data, the problem is statistically with Chihuahuas, because two of the 4 unpleasant small dogs he's encountered are Chihuahuas.  Get another 5 people from his neighborhood giving realtively the same assessments, and, by the application of arguments, Chihuahuas should be banned from his neighborhood.  (and, serious limits on viability of the data b/c, this doesn't account for measuring "pleasant versus unpleasant" equally, nor the dogs in the neighborhood that nobody knows about, hiding away unexposed to neighbors in a negative or positive way.)

Sorry, it was just too much fun to use this data to exemplify my point.[]

What is the source of this data?