Secrets of the City

That’s nothing. Radley Balko regularly covers such reports including a botched raid of the Mayor of a town in Maryland in which the Mayor’s own dogs were shot and killed.

http://www.theagitator.com/2009/09/20/cheye-calvo-in-the-washington-post/

If that’s a true account of the police officers’ behavior, then those guys are sick and should be off the force.

But man, terriers are an insufferable breed. I’ve been bit a few times by terriers. And I watched a pair attack a boy a few weeks ago. It was unpleasant.

If now former Minneapolis police officer Jason Andersen been called to this incident, they would have found a gun near the dog’s body.

I have heard that terriers are responsible for more bites on humans than any other breeds.

My little boy is half terrier, so we have to watch him, especially around other dogs. I’m afraid he would kill any cat he could get to. he just goes nuts when he sees one.

this article sounds a little off.
i wonder if we’ll see a final version of this story come out later.
i suspect the pit bull was more aggressive than is being suggested. and i doubt the dog was tortured by the police as suggested.

Amazing how different the responses are between cities.

Earlier this summer, there was a small dog (IIRC, a miniature doberman)in Dilworth that was responsible for biting FOUR children (in different incidents), two of them requiring hospitalization.

After the 4th incident, the Dilworth PD impounded the dog for two days, then released it back to the owner. No other action taken that I recall.

you guys mean ‘nip’, not bite. Dogs don’t bite people, they nip them, according to Animal Ark.

And bob, how can you claim to know the truth in the Andersen/Fong Lee case, and why would you joke about it like that?

“Dogs don’t bite people, they nip them, according to Animal Ark.”

The text of the article in no way supports this conclusion.

From the article…
According to the dog’s owner, a situation developed when a neighborhood child was nipped by the dog. Another child had stolen his “sippy cup” and had thrown it into the yard with the dog. When the boy went into the yard to get his cup, the dog nipped him.

Dogs don’t bite people, they nip them …

If blood is drawn or the skin is broken, it’s not a nip.

I don’t make any claims, baker, but I agree my weak atempt at black humor sounds insensitive. Mea culpa.

It’s a simple solution. If you have a dangerous dog breed (chow,pit,rott,husky,shepherd,doberman etc) keep them inside when your gone.

Huskies are considered dangerous? Mine could’ve been considered dangerous to wild furry and feathered creatures that had the misfortune of finding themselves in my fenced yard, but she was never less than friendly to humans and other pets.

It’s largely a matter of size and power, indyr. Any breed may bite, but some have the strength and size to take down a person. Huskies certainly are powerful enough to do that.

That said, indyr, I have no doubt your Huskies were big sweeties. So are many pit bulls, when properly raised and trained.

Baker, I read the article and knew the line you meant. Where you fail is to show how this description of the dog nipping the boy can lead to any fair reading that “dogs never bite people” in the eyes of Animal Ark.

Frankly, that’s the kind of hysterical, reactive, non-logical comment I expect to see on the Star Tribune website.

Well, to be fair, my first comment was sort of a joke–you know sort of making light of Animal Ark, playing on things like “Rabbits are kept in a luxury bunny suite that includes all the amenities a house rabbit deserves.”
Slightly mocking, if you will.
I like animal ark–a good organization. I however, would see this event as ‘a shame’, but not utterly disgusting, revolting, or unconscionable, as ark’s members do.

I don’t know what’s more hysterical though–my comment, or you actually thinking that I was re-iterating an offcial statement from animal ark, or coming to that conclusion on my own.

Where was the guy that karate chopped the Rottweilers when we really needed him?

Forget him. Don’t send a man to do a dog’s job.

“I don’t know what’s more hysterical though–my comment, or you actually thinking that I was re-iterating an offcial statement from animal ark, or coming to that conclusion on my own.”

The former. All I did was take you at your word.

Sorry. I don’t mean to be a whining little bitch about it either. I did take your comment as hating on Animal Ark for mostly imaginary reasons. I think it is fair to ask if they know the bite was merely a nip. I think it is fair to question their version of the story, overall. But I doubt they’d deny that dogs can hurt people (they don’t in that article.)

no, problem, i should have recrafted what i was trying to poke fun at.

Ahhhhm! 5 posts say “article” this is a blog post from an animal advocacy group. It is not an article. Please be informed readers and contributors. The responsibilities for posting an article and an advocacy blog post are not the same.

Well, a blog post actually fits the definition of an article. And I am the one who actually posted it, and did not refer to it as either a blog post or an article; I don’t know that commenters have any significant responsibility for making the distinction you suggest.

That’s the problem with today’s kids: They don’t understand the language they speak. “Article” is an appropriate word for any non-fiction prose that is published, whether it’s printed on paper or assembled of bits and bytes online. Look up the definition, hokeypokey.

KSTP Eyewitness News reported on this story tonight. Those posting here may be interested in seeing their perspective.

You can find their story here:

http://kstp.com/news/stories/S1152895.shtml?cat=1

While Animal Ark is an animal welfare organization, we maintain a balanced perspective and strong working relationships with animal control organizations in Minnesota. We understand and appreciate the role Animal Control plays in our community.

In reporting on this story, we were careful to report it accurately. We chose to use the term “nip” because we believe it accurately described the lack of substantive injury caused by the interaction between the child and the dog.

The typical types of words used to describe aggressive actions of animals to people would be nip, bite or attack. We would typically use the word “bite” in reference to an animal using their teeth to, at least, break the skin. We would use the word “attack” to reference something causing more serious injury.

Animal Ark reported this story on our web site after having obtained a copy of the police report; after having spoken with the dog’s owner; and after having spoken with several representatives at the Columbia Heights Police Department, including the Captain in charge.

Furthermore, we stand by our assertion that when trespass has occurred, or when a dog has been provoked, dangerous dog laws in Minnesota do not apply. To be declared a dangerous dog a dangerous dog, an animal must inflict “substantial bodily harm” without trespass or provocation.

So, the big question remains: under what laws were the Columbia Heights police department operating with they entered this yard and shot this dog? Whether or not you are an animal advocate, that is an important question you should want answered.

There is a video mentioned in the blog post. Where is the video now?

I was attacked by my neighbor’s Pitbull while taking my infant son out of my car in front of my yard last Saturday. They had left their fence open. It was the most terrifying moment of my life. I’m a 275lb man and had no defense as it grabbed my foot, held and thrashed around trying to drag me down.

These dogs should not be in the city where people are living on top of each other. Not owned by the douche bag in that video for sure. When the police respond to a dangerous dog breed biting a child it can be a shoot first ask questions later situation. These dogs maim and kill…especially children.

The Animal Ark articles read like Fox News. They didn’t even call the dog a Pit Bull.

Apologist can talk all day about the failure of owners and the failure of communities or the failure of parents for letting their children get too close. It’s the guns don’t kill people people kill people argument. Which is valid except that in urban areas guns and these dogs are a status symbol for irresponsible thugs.

It’s not about the “family pet.”

If there was a machine in your neighbor’s yard that could run at you and rip your throat out, it’s have a safety bar and off switch. I didn’t call the police on the neighbor’s dog when it attacked because I knew they would put it down and I didn’t want that to happen. (My brother has Pit Bulls) Instead we agreed that they would find a new home for the dog as I was not comfortable with it around.

However, reading articles like this and seeing people try to cover every angle on why a dangerous dog who bit a boy shouldn’t be shot by police. Does the dog have to kill the kid? They do that too, right here in Minneapolis, with a history of biting first: http://www.kare11.com/news/news_article.aspx?storyid=262338

Bottom line. These dogs are an added danger to the city. I was just getting out of my car..in front of my yard…with a baby.

Animal Ark:

Don’t pretend to be balanced. How many times do you report when a dog does attack or kill someone?

If a guy comes at me with a sharp knife and doesn’t break my skin. I don’t call this a nip.

I call this an attack.

Just like no one calls Pit Bulls “American Staffordshire Terriers.”

I saw the (dead) dog owner being interviewed by KSTP-TV. Once you see/hear him, the police version of the story sounds much more credible.

Shad, if a stranger comes into your house and you hit him with a knife to get him to leave, and the knife does not even break the skin, do you also call that an attack?

Shad, don’t pretend to be balanced.

I stand by earlier assertion. Don’t leave your dog unattended and chained in your yard….especially if its a “dangerous” breed.

When you own one of these breeds it is necessary to go above and beyond the normal responsibilities of a dog owner.

As for shads arguement that they should not be allowed in the city, thats crap. They have just as much right as any other breed but owners need to be held responsible. Charge a couple hundred dollars a year registration or make the extra insurance riders a legal requirement. That ought to help weed out the thugs that have no right owning any dog let alone a pit.

Some things to consider in this case: The term “pit bull” does not refer to a “breed” of dog. It is generally a derogatory term used to reference a collection of different breeds. Which breeds are included varies depending upon who you are talking to and where you live. The United Kennel Club in Europe registers a breed called the American Pit Bull Terrier. http://www.apbtconformation.com The AKC in the United States does not recognize this breed. However, they do recognize a breed called the American Staffordshire Terrier. http://www.akc.org/breeds/american_staffordshire_terrier/index.cfm Conformation-wise, these two breeds are nearly identical. To complicate things a bit more, the term “pit bull” is also used to describe other breeds, including: The Staffordshire Bull Terrier http://www.akc.org/breeds/staffordshire_bull_terrier/index.cfm The Bull Terrier http://www.akc.org/breeds/bull_terrier/index.cfm Some people also use the term to describe other breeds, including The American Bull Dog, which is another breed not recognized by the AKC. http://www.dogbreedinfo.com/americanbulldog.htm The correct reference to the breed of the dog involved in this situation is American Staffordshire Terrier. According to research conducted by the National Canine Research Council (http://nationalcanineresearchcouncil.com/) media reports on so-called “pit bulls” also often include dogs of breeds generally NOT considered “pit bulls”, including labrador retrievers, rottweilers, mastiffs, boxers and others.

Pit Bull is not a derogatory term, but it has become a negative term due to people being injured.

People who buy Pit Bulls call them Pit Bulls. There are Pit Bull clubs, Pit Bull competitions. My brother used to breed and enter Pit Bulls into pulling competitions. His dogs were great dogs.

The only reason Pit Bull has become a negative term is because they are dangerous on a bad day. When a toy poodle nips at someone, they get kicked across the room, when a Pit Bull does it…someone goes to the emergency room or coffin.

They have been bred over hundreds of years to be fighters. That is their job. They have low pain tolerance, fierce loyalty to their owners, great strength, all jaw, and are very unfriendly to other animals and strangers.

Ignore or skirting these facts does no one any good. When you have something that is generally very dangerous in an urban area, you need to deal with it.

Bixby, I didn’t say I was balanced, Animal Ark did.

I was attacked by a Pit Bull last Saturday in North Minneapolis where they are a huge status symbol. It’s a problem. It’s not ok. By the time people “go after the owner” the dog has probably already hurt someone.

Besides, going after the owner will raise cries of racial profiling or other injustice. You have to regulate the ability to sell and buy these dogs in urban areas just as we do guns and explosives.

If you are every getting your baby out of the car in front of your house and turn around to have one of these dogs come at you..it doesn’t become and issue of owners or cops or fences. It’s the ability of a dangerous thing to bring terror upon you.

I’d appreciate it if you had some empathy, I am a real person telling you about real terror that should not have happened. The dog though he was defending his property..he wasn’t. Dogs don’t know where the borders in big cities are unless there is a giant fence.

Do we need giant fences everywhere to keep dangerous animals in them? Seems weird to me.

Max, if I child wandered into my yard and I hit him with a knife and did not break skin..I think people would call that an attack.

If a child wandered into my house and I did it…yeah..maybe people would say I had a right to defend my property….I still don’t think it’d be an appropriate move.

That’s a pretty complicated distinction to expect a dog to make.

ryanl. How much rights do any breeds have in urban areas? There are a ton of animals that the city does not allow in city limits. My wife wanted to get a goat but we are not allowed. My grandmother in Montana had a goat in her yard it was great. Likewise in Montana I could carry a pistol strapped to my side with no problem or permit at 14 years old. That would be “crazy” in the city.

Even though “Guns don’t kill people, people kill people.” Which is the EXACT same argument for dog owner’s responsibility.

People are mixing up their fondness for “Dog” with the reality of what these animals are, how they were bred, and how they behave.

There is a public health issue here. They are potentially dangerous and should be regulated like other potentially dangerous things. High fees aren’t going to do it because then you have regressive discrimination problems.

If any of you guys are ever attacked by one when going about your business I think you’ll feel the same way. I know a guy with a Tiger, says “it’s a total sweet heart.” I thought it was kind of awesome to hang with the mellow tiger until it got hungry and he had to throw frozen chickens at it to get it to calm down.

Tigers are not allowed in the city even with proper training because they are dangerous. Even though they’re a kind of cat.

Pit Bulls are not wild..but they are bred to have wild brains. Pit Bull trainers say “don’t expect your dog NOT to attack someone.”

So when it comes to a question of whether a Pit Bull was acting bat shit crazy or not…you’re ill informed if you think the dog was being mellow. They’re not mellow with strangers. It’s not their nature.

Max, exactly. Dogs can’t sort that stuff out. So they’re basically booby traps.

It’s illegal to set up a knife to swing down when someone opens my back door to protect me when I’m sleeping. I can’t rig off a gun to go off and shoot someone at knee level if they climb my fence. In fact, if I moved into a house with a hole full of spikes in the backyard..I’d have to make it safe. Just in case a kid wandered through. (those safety issues on private property have been well tread in court)

That’s why I don’t think these dangerous dogs should be in densely populated areas. I barely trust my human North Minneapolis neighbors to make good choices that don’t hurt me.

Having only fences between me and something that can out run, jump, out power, and rip my throat out… it only seems normal until one gets out of a fence and busts up your day.

Then it’s like…why all the killing machines?

Dogs don’t bite people, people bite people.

“That ought to help weed out the thugs that have no right owning any dog let alone a pit.”

yeah right, ‘cuz thugs love to follow rules.

it was one potential solution, baker what do you propose?

“Killing Machines?” Really? “Booby traps”? And this language from someone complaining that Animal Ark us not balanced?

To be clear, some of the most severe dog attacks on people in Minnesota have been perpetrated by breeds other than those often referred to as so-called “pit bulls”. People would not necessarily know that because the folks in the media do not tend to report these events. Because people get more fired up about “Pit Bull” bites, the news media are more likely to cover those stories.

A perfect example happened a couple of years ago. On the same day in the Twin Cities, there were two reported dog bites. One was a minor nip by a so called “pit bull” that resulted in no injury to animals or people. The second bite resulted in serious injury, a child was hospitalized. That injury was inflicted by a German Shepherd.

Early that morning, my phone started ringing. News reporters were calling wanting information about the “pit bull” “attack”.

I told them I had very little information, other than reports that there was no injury. I told them, however, that I had more information about the German Shepherd attack, that resulted in a child being hospitalized. I asked if they wanted information about that event. Every one of them responded in the same way. “No.” they said.

The German Shepherd event was never reported. Several news organizations reported a “pit bull” “attack”.

It is worth noting, there has always, it seems, been a canine scapegoat.

In the mid to late 1960’s it was the Doberman Pinscher. Then, it was the Rottweiler. For a time, it was also the St. Bernard (there is a reason that is the breed chosen for the Cujo story).

People attitudes and stereotypes about dogs are always changing. Remember the RCA dog? Spanky and the Gang? These, and other canine friendly images from the time were of so-called “pit bulls” because they were largely thought of as wonderful, loyal family dogs and were described as “great nannies for children”.

Since that time, it is not the dogs that have changed, it is our cultural bias that has.

Some basic facts about dog bite, dog attacks and “pits”:

During the years that media in the USA has become obsessed with reporting dog bites, these incidents have actually gone down. In the 1970′2 for example, the City of St. Paul saw, on average, about 1,200 bites per year reported in the City. Generally, now the number is around 200 bites. During that same period, the percentage of so-called “pit bulls” has increased dramatically. The data in St. Paul is consistent with national trends.

Several years ago, due to all of this hype around so-called “pit bulls” the city of Denver enacted a ban on the various breeds often referred to as Pits. The rounded up and killed thousands of family pets. People were forced to flee the city or get rid of their pets.

What has happened since? Dog bites are up in the city. Serious dog attacks are up in Denver. More people hospitalized due to dog bites than before the ban.

To distill this down a little more: every year in the usa, there are, on average, about 12 fatalities to humans from dogs of all breeds. There are between 4 and 6 fatalities resulting from the dogs often referred to as “pit bulls”. This ratio is likely due to the huge popularity of these breeds. At most impound centers or shelters, these breeds often make up 50% or more of the total dogs.

Furthermore, there is a problem for the dogs created by the negative and false stereotypes: the wrong kinds of people get these dogs for the wrong reasons. Criminals use the dogs for protection, for fighting, for all sorts of bad things.

People who have studied serious canine attacks on people have concluded some general things about them:

The breed of the dog is not relevant. Things that do contribute to canine aggression are things like it’s reproductive status, and how it has been housed.

A significant percentage of fatal attacks on humans for example, are inflicted by habitually chained dogs that have received little or no training or poor socialization. Nearly 90% are from intact animals.

In spite of this, St. Paul is one of the only communities in Minnesota that has a restriction on keeping animals chained outside. This practice is still unfortunately common.

Even still, the numbers of serious injuries resulting from dogs is very small, especially relatively to the number of dogs living in close proximity to people. Frankly, from a statistical perspective, a child is more likely to be killed by their own mother than by a “pit bull”.

A person in the USA is also more likely to be killed by killer bees, moose, or to be killed by a lightning strike than they are to be killed by a so-called “pit bull”.

Yet, it is not uncommon to hear these dogs referred to as “killing machines”. C’mon. That sort of ignorance and bias is just not called for.

To distill this down a little more: every year in the usa, there are, on average, about 12 fatalities to humans from dogs of all breeds. There are between 4 and 6 fatalities resulting from the dogs often referred to as “pit bulls”. This ratio is likely due to the huge popularity of these breeds. At most impound centers or shelters, these breeds often make up 50% or more of the total dogs.

I’d give you the benefit of the doubt that the dogs are popular, but in order to be proportionate to the number of fatalities, that would mean that one-third to one-half of all the dogs owned in the U.S. would be pit bulls. I can’t see that. Equally, I think it distressing that up to half the dogs in shelters are pit bulls, as you say.

Come on, what’s going on? It not just a matter of popularity.

Rat:

Read the rest of my post. Obviously it is not JUST popularity. Other factors include the wrong people getting the dogs for the wrong reasons, i.e. people who keep protection dogs more likely to chain them, not neuter them, feed them meth, etc.

Chain a standard poodle to a fence, don’t neuter it, don’t train it, feed it meth (meth has been implicated in several serious dog attacks on people) and you will have a dangerous poodle.

None of this, by the way, is really relevant to the story that started this thread. There is no evidence the dog killed in this story was, in fact, dangerous, at least not according to the definition in MN law.

That being said, people’s willingness to blame a breed of dog (that isn’t even a breed) speaks volumes to how this incident may have escalated to the point it did. Had the dog been a lab and responded exactly the same way, they would have likely quarantined the dog at home, which is typical and customary procedure.

The hyper-aggressive nature of the police response, I have no doubt, was a response to breed bias.

It is also worth pointing out two other fun facts:

* The American Temperament Testing Society ranks the general disposition of breeds of dogs based on temperament testing. In these tests, the breeds most often referred to as “pit bulls” score at the high end of the temperament scale. They test better than many breeds generally thought of as “friendly” breeds, and about the same as Golden Retrievers. Here is the data:

http://www.atts.org/stats1.html

* The owner’s version of the story and the police version of this story are virtually identical (at least if you follow the actual police report). The questions not being asked seem to be the important ones. What law was the police following when they killed this confined dog? To be declared dangerous in MN, a dog must inflict substantial bodily harm in an unprovoked attack that did not involve trespass. Trespass and provocation were both issues in this case. No one would argue the injury involved would amount to “substantial bodily harm”.

So, setting aside the hype about the breed, what was the rationale for their actions?

This ratio is likely due to the huge popularity of these breeds. At most impound centers or shelters, these breeds often make up 50% or more of the total dogs.

This is flawed analysis. Equating a breed percentage in an animal shelter with the dog breed population out among general public is not the way to go about determining the popularity of one breed over another.

Are “pit bulls” as popular as shelties or labs or retrievers or poodles or dachshunds? I think not.

>>Are “pit bulls” as popular as shelties or labs or retrievers or poodles or dachshunds? I think not.<<

In my neighborhood, “pit bulls” are more common than shelties, poodles or doxies. It would be difficult to assess labs, because of the number of mixes that could have labs. I can say there are very few purebred labs in my neighborhood. At the same time, purebred Am Staffs and Staffordshire Bull Terriers, as are mixes of those breeds.

One of the problems with this discussion is that objective data about populations of breeds is not available. The only objective data available is percentages of these dogs at animal control in shelters. You can actually go there and count, or get reports through history.

It may be a flawed assessment. It is, at least, better than pure conjecture.

A chained poodle eating meth can be dangerous, but can also be drop kicked. A pit bull is much stronger, so even if the breed isn’t inherently more dangerous, they can do more damage more quickly. And since there are so many thugs that own pitbulls, you have more angry pitbulls, not by any fault of their own. It’s as simple as that. Start pushing real penaties for irresponsible dog owners. If their dog kills someone, and it can be proven that this dog was habitually mistreated, charge the owner with negligent homicide. Mauled and seriously injured? Attempted murder or felony assault.
As far as I know, there has only been one (or a few?) succesful convictions of murder for an irresponsible dog owner in the US…

>>A chained poodle eating meth can be dangerous, but can also be drop kicked. A pit bull is much stronger, so even if the breed isn’t inherently more dangerous, they can do more damage more quickly<<

Baker, your lack of understanding of dogs is showing. A standard poodle can get weigh in at more than 75 pounds. I would love to see you “drop kick” an attacking standard poodle. Trust me. That’s not going to happen.

How about another breed, like a Great Dane? Heck, how about a Golden Retriever? Any dog of sufficient size treated this way will be dangerous. You seem to have missed that point.

Furthermore, the vary bias you perpetuate only causes more “thugs” (your word, not mine) to want a so-called “pit”, thereby furthering the stereotypes. Its a vicious cycle that can only be broken with education and knowledge.

Prosecuting someone for murder if their dog kills someone would be very problematic from several perspectives. One specific case comes to mind: There was a fatal dog attack on a human in Texas a few years back.

On the surface, it was a standard, sensational “pit bull” kills helpless victim story. However, folks from the National Canine Research Council, as well as animal behaviorists followed up, met the dog, interviewed the owner and other witnesses. What was learned reveled a very different story.

The dog in question was owned by someone considered to be mentally challenged and on disability. They were a regular user of injectable narcotics, including meth and other drugs. They routinely “got high” with the dog.

The “victim” in this case was a “friend” of the dog’s owner, and would periodically “get high” with the owner and the dog. They had done so just before the incident occurred involving the attack.

That portion of the story was consistent among the witnesses. The specifics of what actually happened to trigger the attack varied. Some say the victim hit the dog. Some say he pulled its ears. Some say the man kicked the dog.

In any event, the man did something to this strung-out dog that triggered the attack. Is the owner responsible? Is the victim? Are the other people that were present?

More importantly, is a dog that is forcefully injected with a drug like meth and then abused responsible? Are the other members of the dog’s breed responsible? I say, no. The people are responsible. But trying to crack down on animal cruelty has proven problematic. There is much resistance to strengthening animal cruelty laws.

Too many people find it too easy to blame the dogs.

How about another breed, like a Great Dane? Heck, how about a Golden Retriever? Any dog of sufficient size treated this way will be dangerous. You seem to have missed that point.

How did I miss that point? it’s obvious. My point was that pitbulls seem to be disproportionatley owned by irresponsible people. No mystery why you see more reports or at least more media hype about pits. my point, is that when they do attack, they may attack more viciously because of their strength. Maybe that isn’t completley true, but in my knowlege pitbulls have really strong heads and necks compared to say, a poodle..

Furthermore, the vary bias you perpetuate only causes more “thugs” (your word, not mine) to want a so-called “pit”, thereby furthering the stereotypes. Its a vicious cycle that can only be broken with education and knowledge.

Oh please, my observation is going to influence what type of dog someone wants to have…bullshit. It is no secret that pitbulls are a popular breed of thugs(my word) and many train them to be violent. That is not to say that there are not responsible pit owners who treat them well.

In any event, the man did something to this strung-out dog that triggered the attack. Is the owner responsible?

Yes. any responsible owner would not allow their dog to be anywhere near narcotics, much less inject the dog with it.

More importantly, is a dog that is forcefully injected with a drug like meth and then abused responsible? Are the other members of the dog’s breed responsible? I say, no.

I say no, too. My entire point is that dog owners that raise their dogs to be violent, or abuse them, or inject them, or fight them, should be held responsible when they attack someone.

…and that means charged with homicide if appropriate.

My point was that pitbulls seem to be disproportionatley owned by irresponsible people.

The same could be said for people, too: Juvenile delinquents are disproportionately parented by irresponsible adults.

Just sayin’.

>>Oh please, my observation is going to influence what type of dog someone wants to have…bullshit. It is no secret that pitbulls are a popular breed of thugs(my word) and many train them to be violent. That is not to say that there are not responsible pit owners who treat them well.<<

Right. Your specific opinion is meaningless. However, the general stereotype is not. General, uninformed stereotyping of breeds is not rational, objective or reasoned, and, should, therefore, be avoided. It is likely what caused the police officers in this situation to over-react.

The fact that your personal opinions do not influence public opinion much should not be a rationale for your holding biased views.

>>The same could be said for people, too: Juvenile delinquents are disproportionately parented by irresponsible adults.<<

OK. I love this point. It is so true. The fact that “pits” happen to be the breed du jour of irresponsible people does not make the dogs more dangerous in any way.

tying this post to one from last week, my neighbor’s pit bull is the exact reason i’m contemplating buying a gun. lil’ thug life across the street loves to walk it around the neighborhood on a chain, beating the hell out of it. something is bound to happen one of these days…

If he is in fact beating it, I assume you’ve already contacted the authorities?

I just read a couple pages of insane reasoning. IF the reason for the disproportionate number of Pit Bull bites is because of the popularity of Pit Bulls..then it’s reasonable for people to be talking about regulation of the Pit Bull as they are the problem.

I don’t know what the stats say but you have to be an idiot to not walk around N. Minneapolis and see that nearly every dog is some breed of Terrier and it was one of them that attacked me last Saturday.

This is why I want a ban or heavy regulations on these dogs.

IF German Shepherds were the issue, we’d be talking about German Shepherds. I haven’t seen a German Shepherd my urban neighborhood. BUT you’ve actually convinced me to reconsider and I now think a ban should be on all dog breeds over a certain size to help curb the popularity of dangerous dogs.

And this awesome reasoning:

“A person in the USA is also more likely to be killed by killer bees, moose, or to be killed by a lightning strike than they are to be killed by a so-called “pit bull”.”

NOT IN MINNEAPOLIS.

And yes, Humans are the problem. Humans bred these dogs over the last 1000 years to be effective at killing. That’s what these dog are bred to do. You don’t like me calling them killing machines but I’m not talking about just human deaths.

Anyone who is an animal lover knows that Pit Bulls are very aggressive to other animals and any cat, squirrel, or other dog will likely suffer injury or die. Do other dogs and cats do this too? Yes…but the report isn’t about my cat being chained to a fence in a yard and biting a boy. It never will be.

But your focusing on “dog” not on animal. Pick your breed or animal. I don’t want ANY animal in an urban area that has the strength to take me down and cause me serious injury or death without the handler / trainer of that animal to have a special license and that animal to be tested for temperament. If someone wanted to reintroduce the wolf to the banks of the Mississippi from Lowry to Hennepin or put a Moose couple in Loring Park’s pond…I’d take the same issue with those suggestions.

Humans are the problem and the solution relies on humans. In highly human populated areas not every human can purchase or breed these big dogs that are very effective at causing injury to other dogs or humans.

“The fact that “pits” happen to be the breed du jour of irresponsible people does not make the dogs more dangerous in any way.”

Doesn’t an irresponsible person raising a dog without love or training make it more dangerous? Doesn’t an irresponsible person make a dog more dangerous in EVERY way? Half the argument above was about people getting their dog high and making them more dangerous.

You are not using logic.

I hope you’re very pro gun because you use the exact same “Guns don’t kill people, people kill people argument.” Are you anti-consumer protection in general? Do you think the individual is responsible for the proper training and use of tools and safety bars and Nader switches should not be added to product? Are you anti-tort? Are you die hard Libertarian?

If so, just say that..that’d be a great explanation for this point of view. Trying to paint the dog as not dangerous doesn’t work. Painting them as “acceptably dangerous” is better…unless you’ve been attacked by one and you find it unacceptable.

A pit just ran up to my window and tried to make friends with my cats. I live in SLP. Make of that what you will.

P.S. I’ve been bitten by a dog twice in my life. One was a spaniel, the other was a Dachshund. Dirty German bastards.

And I’ve known several people with Pits, and they’re the sweetest slobber faces ever.

>>”A person in the USA is also more likely to be killed by killer bees, moose, or to be killed by a lightning strike than they are to be killed by a so-called “pit bull”.”

NOT IN MINNEAPOLIS.<<

OK. If you want to focus exclusively on Minneapolis, here is a real statistic for you. In Minneapolis, you are more likely to be killed by your own mother than by a pit bull.

There have been a total of 3 fatal dog attacks in the last 30 years in the entire state of Minnesota. Only one of those was attributed to a so-called “pit bull”. One was a husky, the other was a wolf/dog hybrid, which, for a host of reasons, I do not think should count as a domestic dog, which would, technically, leave 2 deaths to humans by dogs, one by a so-called “pit”.

And you want to call them “Killing machines” and “booby traps”?

You want to ban breeds of dogs, not realizing that, even if you could, the people you talk about would just switch to other breeds of dogs.

Your comments about them being bred to kill are ill-informed. There are also people breeding a variety of these dogs with outstanding temperaments to all sorts of animals and people.

“OK. If you want to focus exclusively on Minneapolis, here is a real statistic for you. In Minneapolis, you are more likely to be killed by your own mother than by a pit bull.”

My Mother has been to Minneapolis twice and I’ve been attacked by a Pit Bull once so I doubt it.

These kinds of statistics are irrelevant when trying to prevent danger. You’re more likely to die in a car accident then by the pit in my back yard covered by palm leaves with a steak hanging over it…but the city still wants me to take it out. It has killed 0 people and I only maintain it there to defend against Tigers.

I’m interested in statistics though.

You’re focusing on human death. It’s hard to kill a person with 1 inch teeth and 911 service. How many maulings? How many reconstructive surgeries? Wasn’t the woman who got the full facial transplant from a dog?

How many people have had to be treated in Emergency Room by dog bites? What is that insurance cost?

How many police and EMT personnel respond to a situation and a slowed or deterred by dogs?

How many people have been utterly terrified coming home with their infant son on an otherwise very nice day (add 1 to that statistic, I didn’t report it to any authorities)

How many people don’t report dog attacks because they don’t want anything to happen to the dog? (add 1 to that statistic too)

How many dogs have attacked or injured other pet dogs?

How many cats, rats, squirrels, and bunnies have died from dog attacks?

Pit bulls WERE bred to fight and hunt, don’t ignore this truth. If not, show me an alternate history. They are not very strong, fast, low to the ground, and have incredibly strong jaws because little girls wanted something cute.

Also, your focusing on dog’s behavior in stable conditions. What about riots, earthquake, tornado, flood? Do dogs just defend their property then? Will all of the gates be properly locked?

I don’t want to live in a city with a bunch of potentially dangerous dogs. My position is to ban the dangerous dogs. If yours is to go after owners, do it…

“You want to ban breeds of dogs, not realizing that, even if you could, the people you talk about would just switch to other breeds of dogs.”

Excellent point.

I would LOVE every thug in North Minneapolis to turn in their Terriers for Pugs. They look bad ass but if they came tearing at me..and they would…I would giggle instead of being paralyzed with the fear of having my face ripped off.

“There are also people breeding a variety of these dogs with outstanding temperaments to all sorts of animals and people.”

The people who want these dogs and don’t take care of them want them because they are tough and mean.

I’ll be happy to take you on a walk through my neighborhood for a nice wake-up call. People who don’t know each other, let their dogs fight. Other people have them for personal protection and WANT them to growl and snap at strangers. If you are walking with a dog in the summer, you WILL have to cross the street to avoid another dog.

I’m glad there is a ban on this breed: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yi02psMSC34

My Mother has been to Minneapolis twice and I’ve been attacked by a Pit Bull once so I doubt it.

Shad, that’s called “anecdotal evidence” and is not an accurate measure of anything but your own personal experience. To take your tact one step further: Apparently nothing can kill you because you’re not yet dead.

>>You’re focusing on human death. It’s hard to kill a person with 1 inch teeth and 911 service. How many maulings? How many reconstructive surgeries? Wasn’t the woman who got the full facial transplant from a dog?< <

Yes. And, interesting enough, it was a lab, not a pit.

>>I would LOVE every thug in North Minneapolis to turn in their Terriers for Pugs. < <

But, they wouldn't. That's the problem.

As I said earlier, in Denver, when they banned so-called pits, human hospitalizations due to dog bites increased, not the reverse. Same has happened in other communities where the short-sighted "ban" approach happened.

As to your statistics, here is a simple one: each year in the USA, fewer than 1% of all people are bit by a dog, that is including all kinds of bites, including minor ones. This very low number, in spite of the millions of dogs that live among us, suggest that your irrational fears are just that. Irrational. As already pointed out, you live every day with things far more dangerous than dogs, and you have no fear of them.

Perhaps when you walk past someone you think is a "thug" and they are walking a "pit", your cultural stereotypes are working overtime? Just maybe, you cannot identify a "thug" simply by looking at them?

Pretend for a moment that you are walking past a person with mal-intent and they are walking a so-called "pit", I suggest your that your focus on the dog is misplaced. The issue is the person, not the dog.

Take away the "pit" and you are not going to see a pug, you will see a dane or a St. Bernard, or some other "macho" dog. Ban all dogs and you are more likely to see knives or guns.

>>Shad, that’s called “anecdotal evidence” and is not an accurate measure of anything but your own personal experience. To take your tact one step further: Apparently nothing can kill you because you’re not yet dead.<<

OK. THAT was dead-on. (pun intended)

“This very low number, in spite of the millions of dogs that live among us, suggest that your irrational fears are just that. Irrational.”

I WAS ATTACKED BY A NEIGHBOR’S PIT BULL IN MY YARD TWO SATURDAYS AGO. Until then I wouldn’t have given this story or comment section a second thought. I am not irrational, I am a victim. Get it through your head. I want tighter regulations on Pit Bulls because I don’t want people to have to go through what I went through. You have convinced me that there should be tighter regulations on all large dogs.

Noodleman and those who quote him:

They said that IN MINNEAPOLIS I had a chance of being killed by “Your Own Mother”(My Mother) than a Pit Bull. Since my Mom is somewhat estranged, has MS, and lives in another state/moving to another country…I believe it is less likely that she would kill me in Minneapolis than a Pit Bull would. Especially since I have been attacked by a Pitbull once and see Pitbull’s often but have never been attacked by my Mother and see her very rarely.

Yes, it’s anecdotal but there is no empirical or any other evidence of any kind that My Mother is more likely to kill me than a Pit Bull.

What Animal Wise may have meant was “one is more likely..by one’s Mother” or “a person…by a person’s Mother” However they were talking to me and said “your Mother.”

So check your logic once again and if you’d like I can provide you with more statistics about my Mother and Pitbulls in my neighborhood so you can make an objective call on who is more likely to kill me.

Also, my response to the ridiculous Mother thing was a joke and now I’m kind of making more fun.

“>>I would LOVE every thug in North Minneapolis to turn in their Terriers for Pugs.

But, they wouldn’t. That’s the problem.”< <

I can't take you seriously at this point.

>>”Perhaps when you walk past someone you think is a “thug” and they are walking a “pit”, your cultural stereotypes are working overtime? Just maybe, you cannot identify a “thug” simply by looking at them?”<<

…And that “point” ends the conversation for me. I invited you to North Minneapolis neighborhood for a walk and now I’m just concerned for your safety. Have fun on the Internet…

———————————-

Sometimes when I’m at the circus and I see a clown, I’m not sure if they’re a clown or just someone dressed up as a clown because I have no concept of human behavior.

“As already pointed out, you live every day with things far more dangerous than dogs, and you have no fear of them.”

You didn’t point out ANYTHING that are more dangerous then Pit Bulls that I live with every day and I have “no fear of them,” Pay attention to yourself. I think you think your making different points then you are making. I’ll help you. Here are the things you mentioned:

Moose, Killer Bees, Lightening, Mothers,

I am from Montana and am VERY afraid of Moose. In Montana someone will point out how it’s more likely that you’ll be attacked by a Moose then a Grizzly Bear all the time. Grizzly Bears are wicked scary. I may have an irrational fear of them due to their number of attacks vs. total human population..let me know.

I am also afraid of Killer Bees because they are called KILLER Bees. Same with KILLER Whales.

Lightning..totally scary. More anecdotes..my parents lost the top floor of their house to lightning last year. http://www.facebook.com/home.php#/photo.php?pid=30324345&id=1414029175
The only time I was knocked unconscious was electrical.

I am also afraid of my Mother.

So maybe skip that point in the future. It doesn’t work.

Sorry Chad, we are clearly not going to agree. You just keep missing the points.

I think it was pretty clear that my list, lightning, killer bees, moose and mothers was not intended to represent everything in life more dangerous than so-called pit bulls.

And, given that, on one had, you referred to these dogs as “killing machines” and then went out of your way to explain why it would be hard for a “pit bull” to kill someone (thereby trying to justify the incredible low rate of serious bites from these breeds), it is really hard to take your arguments too seriously.

If grizzly bears were living by the millions in people’s homes and interacting all the time with humans in close, personal settings, and there were not many attacks, then I would say the same about them. That is not the case. There are few of them. They live far from people, generally. They do not typically have close, personal contact with people and when they do, it is generally not good for the people involved.

Any comparison between dogs and bears is, therefore, unfounded. Maybe you were not trying to make a comparison, but then why bring them up?

“I am not irrational, I am a victim.”

What do you want from us, a hug?

They said that IN MINNEAPOLIS I had a chance of being killed by “Your Own Mother”(My Mother) than a Pit Bull. Since my Mom is somewhat estranged, has MS, and lives in another state/moving to another country…I believe it is less likely that she would kill me in Minneapolis than a Pit Bull would.

That doesn’t amount to anything, Shad, nor does it prove your point. It is still anecdotal. The fact that you’re still alive only proves that you haven’t yet died.

Animalwise.

1. I didn’t compare dogs to bears. I compared Moose to Bears. You can’t then compare dogs to bears and tell me why I was wrong. Your reading comprehension needs work. You got my name wrong too.

2. I called Pit Bulls killing machines because of how they were bred to hunt and kill ALL ANIMALS. You’ve already made your point that you don’t think this is true so no need to make it again.

Noodleman

You’re wrong. You’re equating anecdotal evidence with fallacious reasoning. It’s not the same thing. (anecdotal evidence may lead to fallacious reasoning but that’s not what I did)

My evidence while anecdotal at this point can all be verified my conclusion based on my evidence wss just in doubting Animalwise’s complete lack of any sort of evidence at all. (They knew nothing about my mother) I understand your line of thinking but you should read it again more carefully.

All of the evidence I presented on my Mother can be verified:

My mother does not live in Minneapolis. My mother has only rarely come to Minneapolis and is not likely to come to Minneapolis again. My mother has MS. My mother has never attacked me.

Meanwhile, I have been attacked by a Pit Bull in Minneapolis recently. I live near many Pit Bulls.

Given just the fact that there are many Pit Bulls and zero mothers led me to the conclusion that “I DOUBT” what Animalwise presented as fact:

That my Mother is more likely to kill me in Minneapolis than a Pitbull.

I doubt their fact. I did not present a new fact such as “Pit Bulls are more likely to kill me as my Mother,” or “My Mother and Pit Bulls are equally likely to kill me.”

Also..did I mention my response was a tongue in cheek?

aliecat.

I’d like a little sensitivity. Have you ever had something bad happen to you?

Don’t think people on the Internet are pretend. If we meet in person, I’ll remember how I told you about a terrifying attack and you flippantly said “what do you want from us, a hug.”

That’s a real jerky thing to say.

I lost all my sensitivity for you by about the 4th time you whined about being attacked by a dog.

You’re wrong. You’re equating anecdotal evidence with fallacious reasoning.

So … one is better or more accurate than the other?

anecdotal, adj. based on personal observation, case study reports, or random investigations rather than systematic scientific evaluation.

fallacious, adj. containing a fallacy; logically unsound.

I still say you haven’t proven anything with your anecdotal evidence. It doesn’t matter, statistically, where you mother lives right now. She could always find her way back to Minneapolis AND KILL YOU. Bwaa-ha-ha-ha-ha.

Because, y’know, that happens in big cities more often than do homicidal pit bull attacks.

I have a neighbor with a Rottweiller he keeps in the backyard. The Rottweiller has never attacked me. By your reckoning, Rottweillers then are not to be considered dangerous.

But I have a sneaking suspicion there’s something about that fence around his yard that keeps me safe. Whatever.

my mother has attacked me verbally thousands of times. does that count?

Not if you deserved it.

alicat. I’m not whining. I only bring it up because she never addressed it and instead said I had an “irrational fear of dogs.”

I wanted to see how far PitBull apologists would go to beat around the bush when talking to someone who was recently attacked by a PitBull. The Answer. VERY FAR.

If you say so, Shad.

Noodleman. “It doesn’t matter, statistically, where you mother lives right now. She could always find her way back to Minneapolis AND KILL YOU. Bwaa-ha-ha-ha-ha.

Because, y’know, that happens in big cities more often than do homicidal pit bull attacks.”

I think you made that up.

aliecat. I read your blog. I get it. I won’t take it personal, you get annoyed by a lot of things. I understand why you read my tone as whining. You can read my blog, I never talk about getting attacked by a dog like I did two Saturdays ago.

If you’re ever attacked by a dog, as I was, you can talk about it all day and night.

Why? because it’s terrifying and hard to forget. I should know, it happened to me.

Did I mentioned that I had my infant son with me? I know I did. I’m going to bring it up again though to drive the point home. Getting attacked by a dog while holding a baby makes it even worse. Unless you hate babies. Then it’s just kind of funny.

I think you made that up.

Uh, no. There are statistical ways of determining one thing or another without resorting to making things up.

I love babies…especially when served with ranch dressing.

Attacked by a dog: +1

Attacked by a dog, with baby: +2

Attacked by Moomy: ?

What’s a moomy? Is that a child sized mumu?

Noodleman. Do you think anecdotal evidence means the same thing as made up?

Let me blow your mind. Anecdotal evidence may be true!

>>I think you made that up.

Uh, no. <<

Then reveal your evidence.

If anyone ever does a Google search for PitBull Evidence Moose Mother..WELCOME!

I am not the biggest fan of kids or dogs but I fail to see the humor in this thread. I’m not above pressing buttons but aside from his outburst upthread he’s being far to rational for this to continue.

Go outside and play, kids. I’m sure there will be someone else to hassle tommorow in a dif thread. If you’re lucky, it’ll be shad!

/WTF, did I just reprimand ppl for mocking other people.
//prob b/c I have an awful low-grade headache that I’ve had for days.
///but seriously, cut it out, kids.

I think you’re missing the point, Shad, which is that although anecdotal evidence might be true of something specific, it is useless to use it to speculate about the general.

For instance, somebody who meets me might come to the conclusion that all Irish-Americans are Jews, vegetarians, drunks, and perverts, but only two of these four things is true of the larger population of Irish-Americans.

Max. I understand. I hope you have a little faith, as you’ve met me and know a little about what I do, that I’m not an idiot. (despite our differing views on the acceptable danger of large dogs in Urban environments.) We have a lot of mutual smart friends.
Check out the goofy nuance.; Noodlemen thinks I was speculating on the general statistic but I am commenting on the specific charge. (sarcastically)

That is: Shad’s Mother is more likely to kill Shad in Minneapolis than a Pit Bull.

I said that I doubted it based on some facts about my Mother. Primarily that she is nowhere near Minneapolis and not likely to visit.

While Noodleman and regulars are playing with a strawman/newbie who may have been a little overzealous in his fear of the kind of dogs that can hurt him, I’m having fun too.

A lesson:

Don’t argue with people about Pit Bulls, they’ll go all “Pit Bull” on you.

Oh, I know you’re not an idiot. I just can never resist a chance to make an Irish joke.

What’s a moomy? Is that a child sized mumu?

Moomy is the furnace monster; my childhood nemesis. Makes the ducts and vents creak and groan.

Shad by the power vested in me by absolutely noone I hearby award you this Mnspeak blue ribbon:

for continuing this endless circle of a conversation for well over a full calendar week.

Don’t argue with people about Pit Bulls, they’ll go all “Pit Bull” on you.

I think you’re being overly dramatic, Shad. No one is ripping flesh from your body. Or barking.

@ryanl: Nice!

If 4[] can have badges why can’t mnspeak have ribbons?

keep it going!

Michael Vick.

Congrats to Michael Vick for his new endorsement with Nike.

Nike “denies “any deal (but they’re still going to “supply him product.”

It could almost go like this

Pit Bull Bad:

Ban Pit Bull

No, owner bad

No, owner and pit bull bad

Arrest owner

Pit bull bite me

Pit Bull: Bad

No, owner bad

Michael Vick gets shoes.

Noodleman – I thought it was funny.

Ryan – I accept your award. I’d like to thank those who made it possible, but not by name. This is my moment.

>>Congrats to Michael Vick for his new endorsement with Nike.<<

Except that he didn’t get one. Ooops.