here are the comments made so far! warning way way way long!!!! and for the most part the posters are on "our side"
I use to think that Pit Bulls were mean because of what I heard from the news,Ilearned about this breed and got to know them--they are not what people think. They are just a terrier dog. It seems like every time a city trys to pass a ban with in a couple of weeks afterward there is massive attacks, but not before the same thing was happening with Dobermans I remember years ago.
Some of the pictures I've seen of the so called Pit Bulls that attack don't look like pit Bulls.
Posted by: Kim at March 24, 2006 06:34 PM
Last fall our daughter bought her first home and we couldn't have been happier for her. She chose a home in a neighborhood that had a homewowners assoc (HOA). Her new home had a good sized back yard with a solid six foot fence which was perfect for her and her dog. She is single and lives alone.
She was looking forward to spring and summer so she could spend time in her yard and entertain friends and family. All of those dreams have come to an abrubt end. Three weeks ago a pit bull broke through her fence and viciously attacked her domestic dog (Murphy) and killed her beautiful cat (Jameson). There were eye witnesses to this attack, but they were unable to stop it. Murphy is going to survive his wounds (pictures of proof). After three weeks he is still under medical care. All of this was immediately reported to Pierce C. Sheriff dept and animal control. They came out and took a report, but did nothing. The following Friday evening when our daughter took Murphy outside to relieve himself, after being confined to the house all day, the same pit bull broke through the fence and came after both our daughter and her dog. She narrowly escaped being attacked by
running into her house at which time she tripped and fell and thought her life was over. After kicking the patio door shut she grabbed her camera and took pictures of the dog at the door.
More proof. She immediately called 911 and animal control. They came to her house, as did her father and I, and said they were going to remove the dog right away. "It was a done deal".
The next morning when she awoke to take Murphy outside she could hear the pitbull thrashing around and barking wildly. They did not remove the dog. They did not let her know that the dog was not removed. Having pictures of the wounds,
bloody cat hair, the dog at her patio door and in the yard, two eye witnesses that signed statements were of no help. Animal control/ Pierce County has done nothing.
Now not only can she NOT enjoy her back yard or even feel safe taking her dog out, she has to have someone come to the house once or sometimes twice a day to check on him while she is at work.
She lives in a neighborhood of families with lots of children who play outside and walk to and from the school bus stop daily. What would happen if this dog attacked a person/ child?
Is this what has to happen before Pierce County takes action.
Do they have to do bodily harm or kill someone to get a response from Animal Control? What is Animal Control and why would they tell someone that they are removing the dog if they did not?
Why would they not notify our daughter that they did not remove the dog.
She no longer feels safe in her own back yard and neither do I.
If you cannot feel safe in your own fenced in back yard there is not reason to stay in your home. Having only had this house for six months she does not feel that it would be feasible to sell just yet. Why should SHE have to sell her house and move? Where are the laws that protect hardworking taxpayers?
Posted by: Patty Carr at March 25, 2006 12:21 PM
My story was previously posted by "Patty Carr" and describes the unfortunate experience I have had with my neighbor's pit bull. What I would like to add, is the emphasis on the lack of response by authorities to respond to such incidents. Both the Sheriff and Animal Control were notified of the attack on my dog. Approximately 9 hours later, they responded. Only after several more calls the same day to 911, after I narrowly missed being attacked by this dog.
While trying to secure the area of my fence damaged in the initial attack (which injured my dog and presumably, based on the evidence left at the scene and lack of return, killed my cat), the owner let the pit bull out of its enclosure and watched as it rammed through the fence where I was working. The owner stood and watched as I scrambled to avoid injury, and even after I requested he restrain the dog, he refused.
It has been three weeks, and as previously reported, I narrowly missed being attacked a week after the initial incident when the dog broke through the fence again and chased me into my home. I was lucky enough to prevent the dog from gaining access, only barely, as I caught its neck in my sliding glass door. After the dog freed its neck from my door, it rammed my sliding glass door repeatedly while I dialed 911 to report the incident. I have photographs showing the pit bull at my door, but was later told that wasn’t enough to prove it was trespassing on my property.
My yard was completely enclosed and my fence was secure (so I thought) to prevent such an incident. Despite this incident reported to Animal Control, the photographic evidence, the witness statement from the neighbor who also called Animal Control after a narrow miss with the dog the same day, and his witnessing my incident as well, nothing has been done.
Under the applicable County Code and Washington Law, the dog is in violation of several Codes, and yet there has been no action taking by law enforcement to protect the public (including their pets).
Although I will not comment on my thoughts on breed specific bans, I will say that I think the greater issue at hand is the penalties that should (and in some places are) in place for owners of vicious dogs, and yet the greatest issue law enforcement or applicable authority’s willingness to enforce them.
In my case, I went 2 weeks without response from Animal Control on the status of my case after the initial report. This is even after they put me at risk after telling me the dog was being seized and the owners issued a citation for their inability to restrain the dog. Thinking it was safe to be in my backyard again, I was caught off guard when the dog began violently barking and attempting to escape from his enclosure to attack my dog and I. Having escaped several times over the past few weeks, it was, and still is, a troubling situation.
After to two weeks of calling Animal Control requesting status on my case I didn’t receive a phone call back. Only after I called repeatedly for two weeks and demanding to speak to someone, did I speak to an officer that stated they would TRY and get to it "next week" - meaning three weeks after the first attack took place, because the initial investigating officer was away in training. My understanding is that the owners of this animal who have shown they are incapable of reasonably controlling the dog and keeping it restrained have not been issued any citations.
After several calls to 911, reports to Animal Control by myself, 1 report by a neighbor after he was nearly attacked, 2 witnesses that signed statements that they saw the dog attacking my dog in MY yard, and that it also was jumping over the 5ft cedar privacy fence into my yard, photographic evidence showing the dog trespassing in my yard, video tape, multiple reports to Animal Control about this dog’s ridiculous barking at all hours of the day and night (with documentation to prove it), there has been no action taken by Animal Control. I have also sought the assistance of my homeowner’s association, as one of the witnesses of the attack on my dog is our President. Although the association’s CC&Rs clearly state any dog that inflicts a bite on a human or domestic animal must be removed immediately, there has been no action taken.
I do not know that breed specific bands will help with these situations, or that registering a potentially dangerous dog will make a difference. I understand the thought process of making it cumbersome to own a specific breed of dog, but that does not protect the public when attacks do occur (regardless of the type of dog at issue). My goal here is not to debate that issue.
What I do believe, is that there need to be greater penalties in place for the owners of vicious dogs and law enforcement needs to take these attacks more seriously and take immediate action to protect the public.
We, the public, and our pets are at the mercy of officials who in many cases have shown a lackadaisical approach to handling such issues, and therefore put all of us at risk. As I sit here typing this, the pit bull in question is barking violently and I can hear it aggressively trying to free itself from its chain as small children play outside in the neighboring yard.
An attack on two domestic animals on private fenced property, narrow misses with humans, evidence showing the dog again trespassing on private property, documentation proving it is a public nuisance is not enough for Animal Control to take action? The fact that I can no longer access or enjoy my own backyard without putting myself, friends, family, pets etc. at risk is not enough to do something about this dog? Don’t we, “the public” have the right to be protected from such violence and to feel safe in the privacy of our own home? What will it take for officials to take action – injury to a human?
Without the response of witnesses, this pit bull nearly killed my 70lb dog. Think what it could do to a small child, or even an adult caught of guard. It has already shown a clear propensity for violence by its attack on my dog, continued attempts to break back into my yard, and attempts to attack myself and my neighbors. Without law enforcement’s assistance, it is not a matter of “if” it is just a matter of “when”.
Posted by: Heather Carr at March 25, 2006 03:41 PM
This is a very unfortunate and horrifying story. The truth is that I believe it is the owner that should be "taken care of". It is clear that any breed of dog would react like this if raised by someone that would allow this kind of behavior to go on. This is the bigger problem, it is extremely sad that people like this are allowed to be guardians to animals, chances are the behavior that you see mirrors the behavior from the humans that they were raised with.
Posted by: Jennifer at March 26, 2006 08:08 AM
I am an owner of 2 Terriers, an 8 month old APBT (American Pitbull Terrier), and 1 1/2 year old Patterdale / American Staffordshire Terrier Mix. I feel compelled to post because I think that owners of dogs that are commonly placed in BSL(Breed Specific Legislation)type laws due to fear over reality.
Before I got either one of my dogs, I fed off the negitives that I saw about Pitbulls, and I honestly feared the breed themselves. What changed that is the fact that I now have to loving dogs who want nothing more but a home and unconditional love.
What BSL does is "protect" the public from vicious breeds... Or does it? In all reality, Pitbulls are statistically less likely to bite or maul someone than a German Shepard, Lab, or even small dogs. It is a proven fact, yet the legislation does not cover smaller breeds.
Pitbulls, like any dog that you can have, will act as their owners have trained, treated, and dicipline them. Well trained, treated, and properly diciplined dogs are noticibly different.
As you will remember, there was a story that was posted about some pit bulls attacking an older woman in the south end because her dogs saw the old woman carrying a stick. Now, before you jump to conclusions, think of this. Look at the owner, and how she carried her self, also, she did not have control over her dogs. I also add that the dogs where not Pitbulls as stated, they where mixes of different breeds, none of which had any Pitbull in them what-so-ever.
Do I think there should be laws about controlling vicious dogs? Yes! Should it be specific to a breed? No! Why? If your Chiwawa was to walk up to me and bite me out of fear, then the Chiwawa should get the same treatment that the Pitbull would if it was to attack someone.
Controlling your animal is your decision, if your dog bites someone, it is no one elses responsibility to control it, including the government. Controlling an animal starts with training (obediance, leash, and other means), treatment (treating the animal as if it was a child, and give it all the nurturing you can), and also dicipline (diciplining a dog does not mean beating them, it means teaching the dog what is good from bad, and rewarding the good actions a dog has done).
I take pride in my dogs, they are my life, and they provide security for me when I am on the road. They know that I am the boss, and they know how they need to present them selves when meeting other dogs or people. I keep my dogs leashed when out side, and hold my dogs harness when they are meeting new friends (be it children, adults, or other dogs), this way they understand that I want them well behaved.
Posted by: Dan at March 26, 2006 08:53 AM
Breed Specific Ordinances do not address the real problem with dogs, which is DOGS RUNNING AT LARGE. BSL gives the appearance of being responsive to a real problem of dogs running at large, without actually dealing with the problem.
If the leash laws that exist were enforced, we wouldn’t have a problem with any breed of dog. There should never be a Breed Specific Legislation. All dogs, of all breeds, who are owned by irresponsible owners can and might be considered dangerous. There shouldn’t be any dog, of any breed, allowed to run at large, and creating a nuisance or danger to any community.
We have laws in nearly all cities that address dogs running at large. The absence of a humane society facility or trained personnel to enforce those laws and deal with dogs at large (of any breed) is a financial choice made by the cities.
Window dressing ordinances that remove the rights of responsible dog owners is not a viable solution. The solution is enforcement of the leash laws that are already in existence in nearly every city nationwide.
ENFORCE LEASH LAWS that exist for all breeds, punish the offending dog owners with jail, fines, and removal of their rights to own animals. Cities shouldn’t be developing new laws that are breed specific and virtually ineffective and unenforceable.
Posted by: Linda at March 26, 2006 10:30 AM
One More thing before I go......
I would like to point out that there are many, many dog attacks that are blamed on Pit Bulls…… when, in fact, the dog attack was NOT from a Pit Bull. A lot of people, including animal control personnel, erroneously identify a dog attack as from a Pit Bull.
pitbullsontheweb.com has an interesting test. Go here and take the test yourself. Can YOU accurately identify an American Pit Bull Terrier?????
In Auburn, the Chief of Police complained to the City about Pit Bulls because they had to shoot (or shoot at) Pit Bulls in the recent months. Hence, Mr. Gene Cerino’s committee created an Amendment to their dog ordinances to please their Chief of Police.
I would venture to say that NONE of those ‘Pit Bulls’ were on a leash when the police had to shoot at them.
My point, once again, is that it is not a ‘breed’ that is causing a problem. The problem is dogs, of any breed, running at large.
By the way, I am NOT a Pit Bull owner. I am a concerned citizen of dog legislation. I have a dog, but it is NOT on Auburn’s ‘Potentially Dangerous Dog’ list. My dog is under my control at all times, and is never allowed to run at large and create a problem for my neighbors...... as it should be for ALL dog owners.
Posted by: Linda at March 26, 2006 11:07 AM
No breed of dog is "too dangerous for our communities". There are owners of dogs who are not responsible and should never own a miniature poodle much less anything larger. I completely agree that leash laws need to be enforced, and that the owners need to be accountable. Some individual dogs are dangerous and need to be strictly controlled and dealt with, with immediate repercussions to the owner.
Personally, I run into problems regularly while walking my dog. Neighbor dogs run loose and harass us, causing my dog to have mild dog aggression problems. It's very frustrating, and has nothing to do with a breed -just lazy owners.
Posted by: Jenny Burris at March 26, 2006 12:00 PM
I believe that we (communities) should "punish the deed, not the breed". People who allow their dogs to roam at large or train their dogs to fight are engaging in an illegal activity and should be punished accordingly.
Responsible pet owners who supervise, train and socialize their pet dogs will be the only ones to comply with the well intentioned but unfair and erroneous Auburn legislation. This type of breed specific legislation feeds into public hysteria and media hype that wrongly stereo types and demonizes Pit Bulls (and other breeds). Breed specific legislation will do nothing to prevent or punish irresponsible pet owners or criminal activity that victimizes dogs.
We really need to put dog bites in perspective. Dr. Ian Dunbar states statistics that less then ten children are killed per year by dogs, compared to 1900 children killed per year by their parents and 22 children killed every day in automobile accidents (1). Even the anti Pit Bull website state statistics that show more children are injured playing baseball then are injured by dog bites(2). Should we register baseballs and bats as potentially dangerous?
The statistics for animal abuse/cruelty is even more alarming. There were almost 8,000 documented incidents of animal abuse last year alone. Just last week "Mooie" the four-month-old Federal Way, WA puppy that was so badly burned by acid that she had to be euthanized by the Veterinarians of Valley Animal Hospital in Auburn, WA. Clearly, humans are much more of a threat to animals then they are to us.
Dr. Dunbar also states that dog bites and deaths due to dogs biting are both unacceptable and preventable(1). I think that the City of Auburn should go back to drawing board to explore fairer, more effective legal solutions to their problems. I'll say it again, "punish the deed, not the breed"!
(1) Dr. Ian Dunbar, Dog Aggression:Biting
(2) (table derived from Weiss HB, Friedman DI, Coben JH. "Incidence of dog bite injuries treated in emergency departments," supra, p. 53):
Posted by: Kathleen at March 26, 2006 12:27 PM
When Auburn brought this matter of Ordinance change (Ordinance 5996) to Council on February 21, it had been heard earlier in the afternoon (5 PM) at Committee level, and was sent to COUNCIL that same evening, WITHOUT it being posted on the on-line agenda for Council Meeting that night. Those people present for the Committee Meeting did not KNOW that this was going to Council that same evening. A lot of us went home after Committee Meeting.
I had checked the on-line agenda for the Council Meeting earlier in the day, and the Ordinance 5996 was not posted as a part of the Council Meeting that night. I had no reason to think it would be presented to Council that very same evening. I'm not convinced that the Ord. 5996 going to Council without it being posted on the agenda was 'legal' or not.....
But.... at best...... It was very, very slippery and slimy. Those of us who were present for the Committee Meeting were not allowed to make statements on the Ordinance (which is an amendment to the existing dog ordinance). We could observe, but there was not going to be an opportunity for public comment. I actually heard someone ask the question: “When will this go before City Council?” and….. I remember that the answer to that question was “Soon”. That was it. NOBODY there from the public sector knew it was going to COUNCIL that VERY same evening….. Soon???? Yeah, I guess it was going to be ‘soon’... it was that same night.
It was pretty clear that they really didn't want any input on this type of BSL from the public at the Council Meeting. They had a BIG crowd two years ago when they implemented the original ordinance, and it was clear that they didn't want to consider public opinion on the Ordinance change this time around.
This was going to be a 'Good Old Boys' club decision.... and that's how it ended up.
I'm not totally convinced that the passage of Ordinance 5996, without it being posted as an agenda item, for the purpose of notifying the public, was legal..... I guess Auburn is exempt from following due process of law????
Gene Cerino and I had a series of emails the next day. He was hesitant to discuss the matter with me at all, but finally did so…… and was answering my questions in regards to the Ord. 5996…… UNTIL I questioned him as to WHY the Ord. 5996 was not listed on the agenda for Council Meeting that night. At that point, he became very huffy with me (see below), and didn’t answer my question, and quickly lumped me in as an ACF member (I’m not)…… and his final statement to me in those emails was:
***I finally figured why you are so curious please say hello to tour fellow members of the ACF and read the paper for answers to your questions. Thank you for your interest but please no more questions. Gene Cerino***
He was clearly no longer comfortable with explaining this ordinance.
That's a pretty sorry way for elected officials to behave in matters of making law.
The best way to handle issues like this is..... VOTE...... and VOTE Cerino and his Committee members out of office.
If you don't vote...... start voting..... these are the people who are making the BSL laws, based on inaccurate, incomplete and incorrect information.
VOTE GENE CERINO out of office. It was his committee.... and he is the Chairman.... and... in one of his email to me (I had asked who authored the Ordinance) he said:
***This is an ammendment to a previous ordinance and was in response to a request from our police chief. My committee was the committee of origin and I am the chair so I guess I was as clode as you can come to arriving at an author.Gene Cerino***
(Note: clode should be ‘close’ …. And …. ammendment should be ‘amendment’)
Register to VOTE and …..Go to the polls, and VOTE!!!!! and VOTE GENE CERINO and his buddies OUT OF OFFICE. A little housecleaning in Auburn might be a good place to start with this and other Auburn problems.
Posted by: Linda at March 26, 2006 02:27 PM
And then....... while you are VOTING THEM OUT OF OFFICE, vote for RESPONSIBLE leadership to replace them that will see to it that the laws we already have are enforced. (in this case it would be in regards to Dogs Running at Large ... basic Leash Law).
VOTE for leadership that will see to it that money is appropriated for Animal Control... and Animal Shelters, and have trained personnel available to deal with the problems of dogs, of any breed, running at large.
Posted by: Linda at March 26, 2006 02:55 PM
I am not sure where I stand on the legislation. But I do want to give kudos to the women who was interviewed on the show. Well spoken, knowledgable, and persuasive. She made me consider both sides of the issue.
Posted by: Jamie at March 26, 2006 04:50 PM
i usto own a pit bull mexed she was a puppy when we got her.
she was freindly at fist with all peaple but when she got older and stranger she change she began to bark and snap at peaple.
she would snap at peaple who are ashen and blacks she would do this unproboke.
we gave her to some one who had a bigger yard with a large fence we did this becuse we where afred of he biting someone.
i would not own a nother pit bull.
Posted by: cindy at March 26, 2006 05:00 PM
I would just like to say that it isnt the breed that is the problem. There are many many owners out there that do not know how to train or keep any pet. I have 2 pitbulls that are like 2 kids of mine. There are very loving and very social. If you become a dog owner, you must take responsiblity for that animal. That means you need to train them and care for them. You cannot put all the blame on dogs or any specific breed. If chauhuahua's were bigger i am sure they could do much more damage than my dogs would dream of doing.
Posted by: Alicia at March 26, 2006 05:02 PM
I was attacked by a dog as a toddler and almost lost an eye. You're thinking pitbull...WRONG! It was a Doberman. My uncle has now owned 2 pitbulls. The most loving, playful, and caring dogs I have ever known. I used to have a small dog that I loved. One morning she needed out to relieve herself. I heard her wimpering a few minutes later. I found her in our yard near my bedroom window barely able to move. A German Shepard had wandered into our yard and chewed her up like a toy. She died that evening at the vet's after she came out of surgery. I echo everyone else. It is not the breed. It is the owner and it is the lack of enforcement of current laws by animal control. Breed specific laws make as much sense as racial profiling. Same thing different species.
Posted by: Rachel at March 26, 2006 05:08 PM
Its the owners of all dogs that are danger to others (people), mist treat any living thing with intention or neglect and it will strike out. The attacks that have tacken place are people that have good dogs but not good owners. All dogs have the potential and so do people.
Posted by: Rob at March 26, 2006 05:09 PM
Can Cities regulate certain breeds? Should cities regulate certain breeds?
Yes and No respectively.
Pit Bulls like any medium/large breed have the potential to be a danger. No more or less than a Newfoundland, St Bernard, Bull Mastiff, Wolf Hound, Blood hound etc.
The female speaker was absolutely correct in her summation.
It is NOT the breed or its size. It is the OWNER/HANDLER who determines the animals development/behavior/demeanor/emotional state.
It's the dog owner/handler who needs to be educated & regulated and ultimately responsible for their animals lousy/vicious behavior. Period.
Posted by: Dan Szewcik at March 26, 2006 05:17 PM
I don't feel that responsible owners and dogs should be punished for the few irresponsible owners who keep Pit Bulls and through either abuse, neglect, lack of training or lack of proper socialization, allow them to become aggressive.
If Pit Bulls are banned somewhere the people who only have Pit Bulls because they look cool and are an extension of their ego will just go out and choose a different "tough" breed. There will still be the same number of attacks, it just won't be from Pit Bulls.
Take Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada for example. They banned Pit Bull breeds in 1990 and in the decade after that there were an average of fifty MORE bites per year. What does that say about banning Pit Bulls? It doesn't work. The irresponsible owners that have these dogs will simply get a different breed, they will continue to own them irresponsibly and dog bites will continue to happen.
The problem is NOT with the dogs, it's with the owners. Every dog has teeth, every dog can bite.
And I have to agree with Kim. There are a multitude of dogs that bite that get labeled as "Pit Bulls", when in reality they're probably mutts.
Every generation has it's "bad" breed, in the 80's it was the Doberman Pinscher. In the 90's Rottweilers and Pit Bulls became the so called "problem". St. Bernards had a horrifyingly bad reputation "back in the day".
Dogs should not be punished when they haven't made an aggressive action in their lives. They shouldn't be forced to wear muzzles, be euthanized or rehomed, or dumped at shelters.
Why don't we crack down on the REAL problem here, the problem of irresponsible owners. Banning a breed of dog just because it's what's popular with irresponsible owners who just want a dog to look tough and be cool and "aggressive" doesn't stop those irresponsible owners from owning dogs. It just means they have to choose a different breed. Maybe Dogo Argentinos, Rottweilers, Mastiffs? Who knows, YOUR breed may be next.
Posted by: Erin at March 26, 2006 05:21 PM
I just had to jump in on this topic due to my own experiences with animals, dogs in particular. My youngest son, who now has children of his own, was viciously attacked by a German Shephard in 1978. He had extensive damage to his head, face, ears and some lacerations on his legs. By the time we were able to get the dog off of him, he was 3 years old at the time, the dog had torn the clothes off of my son. At the time this occured, my son was at the home of the owner playing with their children on a "playdate". The "incident" lead to plastic surgery to repair his face and ears and close to 190 stiches were needed to put him back together. THIS WAS A HORRORIBLE TIME IN OUR LIFE!!! There was no press, no reporters or "WHOOPLA" over this as the times were different.
The neighbor KNEW the dog had problems as he had bitten 2 other small children before...yet....they continued to keep this vicious animal even with their own small children around. WE were not aware of the problems and since we too had a shepard that was an integral part of our family so didn't think there would be any problems with theirs.
Now, at the time, there are many who made the comment about how "dangerous" Shepards were. HOGWASH!! We know first hand what wonderful family dogs this breed makes. I feel very strongly that the breed is not the problem, the way the animal is raised and the home environment is the problem.
In 1989, our last shepard passed away after 12 years. We were given an American Pit Bull Terrier puppy and raised her. She became just as cherised a family member as did our other dogs. She was friendly, funny, playful and very patient with my infant daughter and later to my grandchildren. NEVER WAS THERE A PROBLEM with this dog. As with other members of our family, when she crossed over to rainbow bridge, she left us with many wonderful memories and a great void in our hearts.
The Lesson here is...NEVER JUDGE THE BOOK BY THE COVER....Judge the dog by the behavior and body language they express. Perhaps we would be better served to have ALL new dogowners take a mandatory class on how to raise a well adjusted puppy/dog. I feel this is the more productive way to go. We have just to many novice or irresponsible owners out there getting animals of any kind. Perhaps giving them the right tools BEFORE tragedy happens or the animcal ends up in rescue....I've seen some of those too.....Not pretty....
Just had to post on this. Thanks for the opportunity.
Posted by: hg at March 26, 2006 05:30 PM
Interesting comments, I do wonder why all the pitbulls shown had their ears cropped,( instead of natural floppy) I wonder if there isn't a little media bias in the pictures? That being said; I think that the breed of dog has very little to do with an animals aggressivness.
The powers to be need to realize that the problem is the person that owns the aggressive dog, just like the problem is the person
who pulls the trigger, not the gun. I know that idea is too simple
for our elected officials to understand. Let me put it in simple terms for our intellectually challenged officials. People need to be held responsible for their actions, that is actions, not possessions, not thoughts, not any action that doesn't harm anyone else.
A post script if you please; I would love to be presented with just
the facts, so if you news people could just skip the spin, I'd die
a happy person!!!
Posted by: marion shaffer at March 26, 2006 06:07 PM
Everyday I take my APBT out and feel disgrace by the harshness we are treated with.
My dog has earned her right to be a valued member of the community.
She is not only extremely well behaved & calm but she is a therapy dog. She serves her community with pride.
I think it is sad that she is treated like a monster.
I am very knowledgable about dogs and have shown/bred/trained and made dogs a career.
My dog does not deserve to be treated this way.
She is not a "dangerous dog" or "vicious" in any way.
I think the ignorance that people show is sad.
Many shelter workers/police officers/animal control officers/trainers have American Pit Bull Terriers.
They are awesome dogs.
Until each of every poster makes friends with a pit bull, please please don't pass judgement.
SOME BAD PEOPLE OWN PIT BULLS.
That is what the problem is - focus on that.
Don't focus on ONE genre of dogs, that will accomplish nothing.
Although when my dog and I go out we are judged, we still manage to change people's opinions about pit bulls. More times than not the conversation goes like this:
"What a beautiful dog, does she bite?"
"No, not at all."
"Wow, she is so sweet. What kind of dog is she?"
At this moment the person either 1) snatches their hands, their kids and step back or 2) respond with
"REALLY! Wow. She is so sweet & well-behaved. I thought they were ..insert vicious, mean, untrainable..."
"No, they are actually really smart, people-friendly dogs that the wrong kind of people own."
"I see that, she is sooo sweet."
The people that literally: get out of line, snatch their kids away, cross the street, make snide comments, refuse to pet her, leave a park or public area and the many other ignorant people we come across: it's your loss. She's an awesome, sweet & beautiful dog and you should be ashamed of yourself for the way you have acted. Your ignorance is in plain sight and it is sad that you can not educate yourself about dogs in general.
Another thing that I encounter ALL THE TIME is people that believe that pit bulls are like a super breed of dog. They have locking jaws, stronger jaws, they don't feel pain, they are untrainable, they are not trustworthy.. etc etc etc..
PIT BULLS ARE JUST DOGS.
They aren't super dogs with extra strong locking jaws.
THEY ARE JUST DOGS.
Their body language is the same as the yorkie sitting next to you.
If you can read your dog at home, when they feel sad or angry or nervous, then you CAN READ PIT BULLS. You should know which ones to avoid. It is pretty obvious.
Sorry - I get defensive about this.
Posted by: A at March 26, 2006 06:46 PM
I have known many dogs. My friends pitbull cross (now 15 and sadly passing soon) is one of the most amazing dogs I have ever met. I knew another pit bull that would let her owner basically maul (without any pain) her mouth, simply because she loved and trusted her owner so much.
That said, I have been attacked by a horde of chihuahuas and was scared out of my mind.
Just because pits can be dangerous, does not mean they are. They are a breed that has been bred for violence, but like the Amstaf, they could be bred to just be pets. Blaming the dog when it is the breeders and the irresponsible pet owners at fault is a horrible thing to do.
The truth is that pit bulls are smart dogs and usually smarter than a lot of people. Ever notice the dogs in movies and tv shows, like Little Rascals and Veronica Mars for instance. They use pit bulls because they need a dog that can focus on their trainer no matter what is happening around them, and Little Rascals certainly had plenty of little kids running around.
Enforce Dog Good Citizenship, or the like, but banning the breed as a pet (and if you look at the lists, they usually include German Sheperds, and some groups are trying to get Huskies on there too) is ridiculous and wont solve the problem
Remember Prohibition? Banning alcohol did not solve the problem. Our nations illegal drug problem? Banning them only puts the drugs that get here into the wrong hands.
Punish the DEED, not the BREED
Posted by: Jenny at March 26, 2006 06:48 PM
I would just like to say that I have the opportunity to work with dogs everyday, all different types, breeds and sizes. I have been bitten, broken up dogs fights, and seen very disturbing behavoir, none of which involved a Pitbull at anytime. I Find the unruley dog behavoir which I see on a regular basis has come from breeds most people would not expect. like golden retrievers or huskys, and more often then not the smaller breeds. Any dog can be agressive, like most people have stated here, it is the owners not the dogs. Dog owners of any breed should be held accountable for the actions of their dogs, after all they are most likely the reason that their dog behaves the way it does. I am the proud owner of three dogs, 2 malamute x's and an australian shepard(who also can destroy a tennis ball in 30 seconds) like we saw the Pitbull do on T.V. I love dogs and cannot stand to see that the ignorance of some people is leading to the Ban of certain breeds, we all need to become knowledgeable about dog behavour, especially if you are going to own one.
Posted by: Bonnie at March 26, 2006 07:42 PM
Behavior problems come from mistreatment of an animal and not it's breed. A ban would penalize good pet owners and give the community a false sense of security. Efforts should be made to find how many incidents are really attributable to breed and not media hype. How many chow attacks were there on children last year? The law should concentrate on any aggresive dog.
Posted by: tim w. at March 26, 2006 08:32 PM
I have had pitbulls ever since I was a boy. I have two dogs that are my children. They have never shown any type of so called killer instincts towards anyone or any animal. There is no such thing as bad dogs just bad owners. Everyone thinks that a dog of any breed bites someone it's automatically a pitbull. I have breed these dogs and properly screened each person. Where this person would care and live with the dog. I wish everyone would follow these types of steps in promoting the breed. I personally don't like breeding pitbulls for money. Unfortunantely many explot our dogs. Please be responsible for your animals because the ones that are responsible are the ones who pay for irresponsible owners. thanks.
Posted by: Rick Imbuido at March 26, 2006 08:35 PM
Please teach our children that animals are still animals. My wife called me the other day about my next door neighbors kids who were throwing things at my dogs. I have a fence that is at least eight tall and made out of cement. It takes a lot of effort to look over my fence. But here are these kids that still find a way to throw things at my dogs for no reason. Now if my dogs barks at these kids the home owners asco. would probably label my dogs as a threat to the neighborhood. But what of these unsupervised childeren who find joy in harassing my dogs that are in my backyard surrounded by a eight foot tall cement fence who never bother these kids next door no matter what they try and do to my dogs!!!! I am a responsible pitbull owner who has taken steps in making my home pitbull safe for the whole neighborhood. I have spent thousands to enjoy this type of breed and has never had any incidents. I threat my dogs as my own children. Please educate and supervise our children in not to play with unknown animals like you would teach them not to play with firearms. Common sense is the greatest asset with pitbulls.
Posted by: poi dog at March 26, 2006 09:01 PM
I dont believe that a whole breed should be judge by what certain owners and dogs have done. I believe that the problem with these cases are that the owners are responsible for these animals.
Dont ban these animals, that is a lazy way of trying to put an end to irresponsible ownership of dogs. Are thay gonna ban labs next when they show higher reports of attacks because pit bulls are out? And what are people gonna do that have beautiful pets that they take to shows, and do other positive activities with?
I think all us responsible apbt owners need to do ALL we can and fight this thing together!!!
VOTE NO BSL
Posted by: Jessie Plunk at March 26, 2006 11:02 PM
Kudos to Diane Jessup, the woman interviewed in the story! She did the best job explaining the Pit Bull problem that I have ever seen - hit the nail on the head with every point.
For what it's worth, I am a dog groomer and have worked with almost every breed. I have been bitten by countless cute little dogs that the public would usually perceive to be "safe". I have never been bitten or threatened by a pit bull because every pit bull I've worked on had a stable temperament and a responsible owner.
Posted by: Cathy at March 26, 2006 11:17 PM
I used to find it laughable when people, particularly lawmakers, would blame the breed and not the owner for bad dog behavior. I now find it reprehensible and despicable. To stigmatize and punish particular breeds instead of bad owners (people) just shows how cruel and stupid our human race remains. I believe it is time to run these brain dead lawmakers out of town. Anyone who, to this day, believes there is such a thing as a bad breed has only their own geneology to confront. While I don't live in Auburn, I want to know who compiled this so called "dangerous dog" list so I can turn up the heat and get some answers. After watching the program tonight I found that Akitas are on the list and had to laugh hysterically instead of going into an angry rant. I have raised them for over 18 years and know them to be some of the most sociable, loving dogs in the world-kid friendly, people friendly, loving, engaging beings. I would not even venture a guess as to why some half wit included them on the list. And probably the most hysterical thing about this list which is supposed to protect the people is the fact that they left off the dog breed which has, hands down, killed more humans than any other. You guessed it, Rottweilers. So how again did you come up with that list that should not be? You and your legislation are pathetic. Get outta town.
Posted by: Craig at March 26, 2006 11:31 PM
Banning a certain breed is a lazy man's bandaid- it won't stop dog attacks, it will merely change the breed of dog doing the attacking. Dogs are individuals, and despite the bad press, pit bulls are not evil, child-eating monsters unles they are made that way by their owners. Any responsible pit bull breeder who had a dog that showed human aggression would have the dog put down, because it goes completely against the breed characteristics. In Great Britain, Staffordshires are known as "Nanny dogs" because they are so good with children. The top drug enforcement dog in the US is a pit bull named Popsicle. One of the top search and rescue dogs in the country is also a pit bull named Dakota. Dakota also is a therapy dog. The RCA dog, The Little Rascals dog, the most decorated military dog in WW1 were all pit bulls. In the 1920's, pit bulls were THE family dog. Would these animals have achieved these things if they were untrustworthy brutes? Somehow I doubt it. Lassie bit her trainer multiple times during the time that the Lassie TV show was on the air, but Petey the pit bull (Little Rascals) never did. Guess we should ban collies- obviously they're vicious unstable creatures (and yes, this is sarcasm)! I'm not saying that dog attacks don't happen, but can we place blame where it belongs- on the person who trained/molded the dog into the end result?
Blame the deed, not the breed- dogs are individuals!
Posted by: Liane French at March 26, 2006 11:34 PM
I have been the victim of "many" dog attacks (and I have the scars to prove it!) while walking or riding my bike. (which i don't do hardly anymore because of the terrible fear of being attacked again by a dog. I totally agree that certain dogs that have a higher rate of attacking do be registered. I agree that any dog can bite, but much more damage will be done by a big dog attack or a pitbull attack than what a 5-10 lb dog can do. The fact is, that just like with anything else, it is the ones that are not responsible pet owners that ruin it for the other dog owners of any breed...and because of that, a law must be put into effect even if certain people feel it is discriminatory. As a past owner of many big dogs myself, I could care less if I have to register my a dog or any dog that the city or place I live would want me to register my dog. If I am a responsible pet owner (which I always was) and am doing things right and have nothing to hide, what do I care! If you have nothing to hide and you are responsible, then following a law and doing what you need to do should not be a problem!! A friend of my family's owned a doberman about 20 yrs ago, and he was a very responsible pet owner, took his dog to dog obedience class, and he loved and took care of that dog very responsibly. But one day it attacked a person who was just sitting in a chair visiting with him in his house for no reason!... and my friend was so upset by it, that HE (the owner) shot the dog himself because he was never going to let that happen to anyone else. The point of this story is, even if you are a responsible pet owner, certain breeds of dogs do have a certain temperment that they are born with! just like a wild animal where people raise from birth an try to tame and give it lots of love...to find out it at some point attacks for no apparent reason...certain breeds of dogs are the same way!!!! I feel very strongly that certain breeds have certain temperments and something needs to be done to be pro-active at protecting people. I realize that people that own certain breeds of dogs may feel like they are being discriminated against, but if they are responsible and are so sure of how they are raising their dogs, what's the big deal for them to register them???? It should not matter! I would! In my experience being attacked in the past by dogs, every dog owner made an excuse for their dog instead of doing what they needed to do...and that was to put the dog down! If a dog viciously bites once, it will do it again. I worked with many dog trainers in the past myself over the years when we owned dogs, and they agree with me! I never had any dogs that we owned attack anyone, but believe me, if they would have attacked anyone ( and as long as it was not a provoked attack) they would have been put to sleep!...and I would register "any" dog I own if the law says I need to. What harm is it doing to register a dog, for goodness sakes! Get a grip people! It's the irresponsible pet owners that ruin it for the few, but their are those incidences where a dog can be raised responsibly and it will still attack! I was bitten by a big dog and a little dog. Both were very frightening, but believe me, it is much more terrifying when you are attacked by a bigger dog and it causes much more damage!
No matter what anyone or city wants to do to try to be proactive and try to do something to make a city safer, there are those who will always complain about something. I would rather work with the city to be proactive, than constantly complain. HEAR IS A SUGGESTION: Make anyone who owns a dog that is 10 pounds or more register their dog! If a dog comes after me that is less than 10 pounds and tries to bite me, I will just kick it or step on it! That way the pitbull, doberman, and rottweiler owners can't complain, complain, complain! Then all dog owners who own larger dogs must register. If you do that, I am sure there will still be those people who complain! If I owned a pitbull or rottweiler I would register my dog...I just don't understand what the big deal is!?? I would want others to feel safe. And I certainly understand this being the victim of several vicious dog attacks. Maybe if that lady you had on the 11 pm show on sun.nite 3/26 was viciously attacked, she'd be more understanding and willing to register her dogs...even if she is responsible. No one is suggesting she is not a responsible dog owner. People need to be protected and the city is trying to do what they think is best...I am happy that they are doing that! It's about time. And when a dog does attack, it needs to be put down and the dog owner does need to do jail time!
Posted by: Beverly at March 27, 2006 12:00 AM
Unfortunately, the pit bull debate is uncovering a lot of the flaws in our society's attitude towards and solutions to dog attacks. A dog attack is not an issue of a vicious dog that should be killed; it is an issue of a thinking, reasoning human being who *chose* not to control their dog.
Humans have the ability to comprehend the damage a dog can do, the need for controlling their dog and how to find resources to educate themselves as dog owners. What I find reprehensible is the fact that people in communities are still trying to treat the symptom of what is really a person's dangerous neglect of their responsibilities to their society.
Today's laws do not in any way reflect the danger that an uncontrolled dog can pose to people, pets and property and the direct responsibility the owner has to keep their dog under control. It is time to stop allowing these people to continue their negligent threats toward others. We give penalties, restrictions and jail time to people who irresponsibly handle their cars and guns - why are we only fining the people who repeatedly let their dogs run loose and/or menace others? Like cars and guns, dogs should be considered a privilege, not a right.
Posted by: Bravewolf at March 27, 2006 12:02 AM
First I would like to say that registering dogs isn't such a bad idea, but registering certain breeds or weights is. If a city is going to create a law to register dogs they should make it all dogs, not certain breeds or as previouly stated weights. I have come across alot more small breed dogs that showed aggresion then large/medium breed dogs.
I recently became a pitbull owner after finding an abused purebreed puppy and she is the absolute sweetest dog I have ever had. She is the smartest and most well behaved and she's only 8 months old with no formal training.
Certain breeds are not more likely to attack then others. It is because it is a fad to have a certain kind of dog for poor owners that it seems like it is more likely to attack. Also the media seems to be concertrating on the pitbull when they are addressing this issue now a days and in the 90's when I was growing-up I would hear teribble things about rottweilers but never actually witnessed anything bad about this breed.
Therefore, I completely agree with over 80% of the people on this comment page. It's not the animal, it's the owner.
"Punish the deed, not the breed!"
Posted by: Regina Phalange at March 27, 2006 01:55 AM
Regina Phalange posts: I would like to say that registering dogs isn't such a bad idea, but registering certain breeds or weights is.
It was not necessary to implement a NEW REGISTRY in Auburn. If they wanted a data base of ‘dogs’ in that city, all they had to do is enforce the laws that already exist…… In this case….. Enforce the Dog License laws of King County.
If that were done, they would KNOW WHERE ALL THE DOGS ARE…. And they would know what BREEDS of dogs live at certain addresses.
My objection to Auburn’s laws is based on the fact that it is redundant.
We have leash laws. We have licensing laws…… all they had to do was enforce what already exists. Of course, they would have to have personnel to deal with the issue, but they don’t want to spend the money on that. Gene Cerino and his committee have now added a NEW registry and a NEW law……. and they still don’t have enforcement personnel to deal with the old laws, or this new registry of a selected few breeds of dogs.
Posted by: Linda at March 27, 2006 06:44 AM
I believe that cities do have the right to regulate or ban pit bulls. The issue at the heart of the matter is that while all dogs can be dangerous, when pit bull breeds DO attack they are more likely to fight to the death than other breeds. An attorney for the City of Denver who has successfully defended their ban conceded that while all dogs can attack, “other breeds are to firecrackers as pit bulls are to hand grenades." They may have the same equal chances of going off accidentally," he says. "But we can agree that a hand grenade would cause more damage should that event take place."
Of course the owner needs to be held accountable, but it is a fact that pit bulls do attract a certain type of owner that in many cases, is NOT at all responsible. How would you feel if you lived next door to one such owner and there was absolutely nothing you could do about it?
Leash laws only help if there is zero chance the pit bull can escape their backyard or owner's home. Do you know that pit bulls are considered escape artists? They can dig, leap over fences, and even open gate latches.
I understand that some people probably do have "nice" pit bulls, but the fact is that pit bulls are often nice to their owners, but what if the owner isn't around, the dog gets out, a toddler or another pet wanders into the dog's territory - most pit bulls will defend their property. Why is it worth the risk? How is one person's right to own a dog that may be dangerous more important than my right to keep my family safe?
Posted by: M at March 27, 2006 09:07 AM
I want to thank KING 5 and Robert Mak for allowing pit bull owners an opportunity to respond. I have dealt with the press alot, and often the program will be slanted one direction or the other - generally toward whatever is "sexy". Since Mr. Mak was obviously unfamiliar with the breed and their sweet nature, I was concerned how it would turn out. I was pleasantly surprised that the show seemed to give "both sides" a chance to explain their viewpoint.
I've always held the opinion that if every newsreporter and city councilmember spent one half hour throwing a ball for a pit bull, the "world view" would sure be different!
Posted by: Diane Jessup at March 27, 2006 09:13 AM
M posts: Leash laws only help if there is zero chance the pit bull can escape their backyard or owner's home.
Yes, I agree. However, if the leash laws are enforced for ALL DOGS, then there is a means to demand that dogs (ALL DOGS) have to be confined to their yards.....
which translates out to: FIX THE FENCE/GATE, whatever..... or LOSE THE DOG.
JUST ENFORCE the law.... all breeds, across the board.... Pitbulls to Yorkie Terrier..... KEEP THEM CONFINED.
Posted by: Linda at March 27, 2006 10:02 AM
M, Kory Nelson, zealot that he is, did NOT defend the BAN in Denver based on any of his "knowledge, theory, or anything else". He successfully defended the city's Home Rule statute and that is why the ban was not overturned. People need to get the stories straight - a recurring theme, here. Read a bit more, please. An appellate court overturned Toledo's ban on breeds b/c it was ruled UNconstitutional. Compare the two. BIG difference. Breed bans are a knee jerk reaction, weak political stance and based on thorough lack of research, knowledge and common sense. It fosters bad will in communities. It does nothing to protect responsible owners or penalize irresponsible owners.
The dogs filmed in the report have stellar temperaments. They also have cropped ears. MANY dog breeds have cropped ears. These dogs are typical of the pit bull good nature and wonderful temperament. They have different appearances and different lives but the SAME stellar temperament. THAT is why they were in the filming.
Registration is required NOW for dogs - all dogs. It's called licensing. It is not enforced. I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that most people don't have their dogs licensed. A canvassing and fining system would be great to have in every community with successively increasing fines for non-compliance with licensing and containment. First bite free for all other breeds outside of the 12 on the list in Auburn? Are you kidding, Gene Cerino? Come on now... who is THAT protecting?
Posted by: Kirstan at March 27, 2006 11:01 AM
Thank you, Kirstan!!!
..... I can't fully quote without going back and looking at the video again...... BUT in that interview..... DID YOU ALL HEAR GENE CERINO SAY:
He ISN'T going to say that the 'LIST' of Potentially Dangerous dogs in Auburn is absolutely correct? (or something very close to that)
Anyway...... my point is....
They can't even be sure that they have the right list.....
oh, give me a break..... demand registration of the dogs on the list that might be the right list of dogs that concern them??? But they aren't sure the list is correct???
I'm still scratching my head on that one.
VOTE..... and vote them out of office... get someone on Council that can do the job.... and do it right
Soemone who will ALLOCATE MONEY for enforcement of the leash laws and licensing laws that are on the books already.
Posted by: Linda at March 27, 2006 11:23 AM
I know that BSL is not a perfect solution. I also know that the problem with "bad dogs" is for the most part really a problem with "bad owners". How do you control for that though? Right now in communities with no regulations, ANYONE can go out and purchase a pit bull (or any other kind of dog). How would you feel if you lived next door to people who own pit bulls and who have proved in the past that they are NOT responsible dog owners? I don't feel comfortable in my own front yard now and I don't think that is fair. Right now there is NOTHING that I can do about it UNTIL something bad happens. I have already told them I will report their dogs every time I see them off-leash. It is a feeling of complete helplessness. And please - don't assume I have not done my research... I have and that includes loads of time spent on websites that are devoted to people who LOVE pit bulls. I know that they don't bite more often than other dogs (I myself have been bitten once by a laborador retriever and once by a german shepherd). What I also know through my research is that pit bulls can and usually do cause much more damage than other dogs.
What I think is probably a better option than a city enacting breed specific legislation is for neighborhoods to do it through their CC & R's when possible. The design of some of our neighborhoods is inherently bad for some of these types of dogs. Yards are tiny, sometimes fences are only 4 feet fall, there are young children and small pets everywhere, and there aren't always clear boundaries between properties. In this scenario, pit bull owners aren't completely shut out from a city, but neighborhoods can have some control as well.
Posted by: M at March 27, 2006 02:31 PM
Well, CC & R's are a lot different. a Property Owner's Association can do just about whatever they want to do...... and that's FINE... if you want to sign up for a CC&R, you KNOW what you are getting into before you buy the property.
As to your statement of "Right now in communities with no regulations, ANYONE can go out and purchase a pit bull"
Yes, they can buy a Pit Bull (or any other kind of dog). BUT...... THERE ARE REGULATIONS. They simply are NOT being enforced.
That is the basis of my objection to BSL Registration. The City of Auburn already HAS REGULATIONS AND LAWS that they won't spend the money on to enforce.
I think that is what keeps getting lost in conversation....
The LAWS exist..... the city won't enforce them. Now they have a NEW law that I question as to even HOW they are going to enforce it?
If there is no money to enforce the present leash laws, where do they think they can finance another NEW law?
And if the owner of one of the dogs on Auburn's precious "LIST" is an irresponsible owner, does anybody REALLY THINK they are going to obide by the Registration Law and come in and 'register' their dog? Probably not.... A BAD DOG OWNER is usually a person who doesn't have much respect fot the law on any issue.
Bad Dog owners are usually pretty BAD PEOPLE in general.
Posted by: Linda at March 27, 2006 04:45 PM
A little more on CC& R's.....
My experiences with CC&R's (albeit it was the State of Michigan.... NOT WASHINGTON).... is:
It depends on the basic structure of the CC&R as to the ability to CHANGE the existing Covenants of Restrictions.
It USUALLY REQUIRES A 100% vote of the membership to CHANGE a CC&R.... not a majority vote... or a percentage of the membership majority... It CAN require the 100% participation of the membership to change the existing CC&R.
Changing an existing Community Covenant of Restriction can be very difficult.
Wherever you live with 4 ft. fences and community areas, the LEASH LAW should, once again, take precedence ... The existing LEASH LAWS should be enforced……. Confine the dog…….. or get rid of the dog. That only happens, of course, if the City is financing and enforcing the leash law.
Without the cooperation and participation of the City with financing and trained personnel, you're sunk. Any dog, of any breed, can be running amok for weeks before anyone responds to the complaints.
Posted by: Linda at March 27, 2006 05:02 PM
Pit bulls are usually the dogs that get striked at the most. But it is not the dog's fault, it is the owner's. The owner IS responsible for the dog's actions, including attacks. The owner should be keeping the dog under control. The owner, when he bought the dog, took upon himself the responsiblility of training and keeping that dog from doing any harm to the community. If that certain breed was already banned in the area where the owner lived, he had no right to buy that dog. It is the owner's sole responsibility to train and make sure that the dog does no harm.
Knowing some very vicious dogs myself, have come to realise that if the owner does not leash the dog when on a walk, and it attacks, it is the owner's fault. If the dog is left unattended, it is the owner's fault if the dog attacks. For as soon as the dog goes onto county road without an owner or a leash (both are required together) the dog becomes a trespasser on county property. Therefore, the county has all rights to retain that dog if any harm is done to civilians during the time that the dog was unleashed.
I stress my point. Owners have SOLE responsibility to any dog that they own.
Please read this through, for I have had some close experiences with vicious dogs, and I hope that I don't ever have to. For the sake of innocent people, Please Keep Your Dog Leashed At All Times!
Posted by: Colleen at March 27, 2006 06:25 PM
Let’s talk about the word ‘BAN’ …. Because the word BAN keeps coming up.
Auburn has not BANNED any breed of dog……. They had required a registry of select breeds of dogs.
I can get the 12 (possibly 13) breeds of dogs that they require registry on…. I don’t have it handy…… but I can get it.
THE WORD BAN is not in here…… it is a REGISTRY OF POTENTIALLY DANGEROUS BREEDS from a list that I am not totally clear how they came up with.
The breeds include rare and exotic…… VERY EXPENSIVE……. Yeah, right???? Like somebody in Auburn, Washington is going to spend up to 5K for a rare or exotic breed? Tee hee……
Anyway….. there is NOT a BAN on Pit Bulls or any other breed of dog in Auburn…… it is a forced registry of a select few breeds of dogs that they (*whoever ‘they’ might be*….go figure)…… consider to be POTENTIALLY DANGEROUS….. it is not a BAN.
It is still BSL….. and it is inaccurate, and incorrect…….. it is BSL.
If they want a ‘registry’…… then connect up with and work with King County to enforce the licensing laws….
Posted by: Linda at March 27, 2006 08:39 PM