By the age of one year the average pitbull, no matter how well it has been raised, just by nature, becomes a dangerous animal.As they reach maturity their tolerance for everything goes way down...that's just the way the breed is. The average person does not only not have the knowledge or ability to train and handle one of these dogs...but even if they did, nature will win out in the end.Cats, other dogs, small children anything weak or "fun" looking will be too tempting to resist.
Sad but true......

It is helpless to expect "owners" to clean up their act. This is because the owners of pitbulls tend to have the same temperament as the bitbulls themselves.

I was driving over in your neck of the woods, Matt, and passed a tough looking guy in a tank top walking his pitbull. I just happened to glance over at him and he began yelling at me, giving me the finger, screaming at me to F off. It was totally bizarre.

If it were just a tough guy, it would be a managable situation to run into this guy, as long as he doesn't have a gun. But, with that pitbull, he may as well be carrying a gun.

I feel sorry for anyone that has had the misfortune of running into those two. I have little doubt that this homocidal maniac has used that dog to hurt someone. I just hope he is in jail and the dog is dead.

I'm all for getting rid of the beasts. Not because I hate the dogs - they can't help it that they were bread to be brutally viscious - but because I don't trust the sort of people that want to own them.

We can't get rid of those people, but we can take their dogs away from them.

A crazy dud

It is not often that I disagree with Matt (especially vehemently). But I do in this case.

I think that Matt doesn't know much about dogs or APBTs, for that matter. There IS a hysteria -- largely media-driven -- about APBTs (or "pit bulls").

I have raised and trained several dogs, from Chihuahuas to GSDs. I have been attacked by several dogs of varying breeds, including an APBT.

I think a ban on APBTs would be a bad and completely counterproductive law. It is akin to banning guns because criminals use them and create headlines (remember the mythical "cop killer bullets" for that matter?).

I went over all this in another long comment a while back, so I will not repeat, but two quick points should suffice:

1. Breed defition is not a reliable predictor of canine violence against humans. A vast majority of veterinary scientists and dog trainers (and scientific evidences) agree with this. Thus, the onus is NOT on APBT owners. It doesn't work that way in this country. The society at large has to prove that there is a causal relationship in individual cases.

2. By statistics alone, the breed that engages in most "deadly" attacks is GSDs (yes, the same dogs that show so much obedience and control that they are the favorite of military-police K9 units).

Frankly, the sweeping generalizations made in some of the other comments are just pure ignorance.

Perhaps there is some ignorance expressed in our comments, G&B. I did not intend to condemn the breed altogether. I don't know much about these dogs, EXCEPT that the sort of people that are attracted to them are the sort of people that I would prefer have no dog at all, especially not one with the crunching jaw and ability to attack that pit bulls appear to have.

Pit bull owners have to be brought to realize that no good reason exists to own these dogs.

No matter how warm and precious you think your pit bull is, the fact is that they are inherently vicious. They can kill. You have no right to put your neighbors at risk because you happen to like pit bulls. They should be banned. Period.

James, I am not used to disagreeing with you very much either, but I suppose it has to happen on occasion. So pursuant to this debate, here's a thought. Let's both use Google News and compile running weekly summaries of news reports on attacks of humans and other animals by a specific dog breed.

I'll continue on with pit bull attacks, you might choose German Shepards, Dobermans, or, say, Cocker Spaniels. It is not a purely scientific exercise statistically, I admit, but I think it would be quite revealing. I'll stipulate right here that breed misidentification, while it does occur, has not been alleged in any of the dozens of pit bull cases I have reported on in recent weeks, and in general provides no real escape hatch from the monthly crush of damning episodes involving pit bulls ripping to shreds and regularly killing humans and animals.

(As a side-note, the news story indexing might also include breed-specific new reports of arrests for dog-fighting operations).

In any event, what seems clearly evident from ongoing review of the news is that only Rotweilers come close to pit bulls in weekly havoc wreaked, and even then, not very close.

Blaming the messenger (media, concerned citizens) is a poor substitue, in my view, for energetic encouragement by owners of well-trained pit bulls, of comprehensive local/regional owner oversight codes and licensing schemes for all pit bull owners in a given locale, including criteria that Irma Kapsenberg of Corvallis most constructively suggests (top of this post).

I want to say this to all of you condemning pitbulls, no pitbulls are not viscious animals, their behaviors may have once been heriditary but these animals have come so far since the japanese and other cultures bred them for fighting. Responsible breeders in recent years have bred these animals for stable temperments good health and companionship. These animals are the victims as are the people being mauled by animals that are left alone outside with no supervision or allowed to run rampant in the streets. Its not a ban on this type of dog we need to utilize but a ban on the people owning them, we need to do better background checks and a criminal history on the people trying to acquire this breed. Dont ban an animal for irresponsible ownership, tell me how this is the dogs fault? How is this problem going to stop by banning an animal in certain cities? Whats going to happen is more animals being bred improperly and carelessly and getting animals without a stable temperment and animals that are unhealthy. So instead of putting all the blame on this dog or that dog lets blame the owners of these animals hurting people and other animals. Ban them from your cities, arrest them, slap numerous fnes and penalties on them. Punish the deed not the breed!
I personally own 2 female pitbulls neither of which are spayed, and neither have any viscious tendencies. My dogs live with my 2 yr old daughter and 3 yr old step daughter and a cat and Boa Constrictor, my dogs would not harm any of them nor have they ever tried. Why is that? Beacause of responsible breeding. Not just buying a pitbull off of the streets for $50 and mating it with your backyard pitbull that gets no attention and no love. My dogs are also closely supervised no matter what they are doing, whether it be playing outside or relaxing in my home, or even eating their food. Which I can pet both of them and even take away their bowls without as much as a growl or even a mean look in their faces. So all of you people that are bad mouthing this breed let me tell you that you are ignorant, I was bit by a cocker spaniel and a 3 lb mutt but never a "Viscious" type of breed pit, rott, ect....

Written by a 24 yr old responsible pitbull owner
David

Okay, Matt. Let's suppose that Google or the traditional media accurate captures the reality (just like it accurately captures the political makeup of the country by showing how conservatives are all basically redneck hicks).

Actually statistics show that APBTs are not number one in "serious" attacks on humans; further whatever stats show now was not the case 30 years old when other large dogs were popular among thugs -- in other words, thug dog breed fad waxes and wanes with time; but let's hold that thought for the moment.

So we ban APBTs. Law-abiding citizens with well-behaved APBTs turn in their APBTs to be killed.

Now what? What are you going to do when thugs 1) still own APBTs and/or 2) move to Presa Canarios (GSDs, Rotties, Akitas, Malamutes, ad naseum)? Ban them all?

What have you achieved with banning all large breeds with the "potential" to harm people? Keep them away from hands of thugs? No. Only away from the hands of responsible owners. Congratulations on creating a self-fulfilling prophesy.

James, pit bulls are number one in fatal attacks, other stats on hospitalizations due to serious dog bites are years out of date, and more research is needed, CDC should step up to the plate, but curiously, won't. Nonetheless, current news indicates pits are far in the lead in serious attacks. Pits stand alone in how widespread they are, their aggressiveness, unpredictability, and in recent years, damage done. They deserve to be singled out for some sort of special safeguards, and that predicting another breed would be as bad in their absence is both speculative, and no excuse for present inaction. Also, I am not calling for a breed ban first, but rather urging responsible pit owners to lobby for tough community standards via licensing, as a prior alternative to bans.

Matt:

Here are some counter points:

"Nonetheless, current news indicates pits are far in the lead in serious attacks."

News media is hardly an accurate statistical basis for reflecting reality (except when studying media reality). News media reflects something else. It reflects either what the purveyors of the news media are interested in and/or what they think increases ratings. Example: during the last election, positive news items of Kerry far outweighed in comparison to those of Bush. Is that an accurate reflection of reality? Or merely a representation of media perception and agenda?

"Pits stand alone in how widespread they are, their aggressiveness, unpredictability, and in recent years, damage done."

Pure and utter -- and uninformed -- speculation on your part. APBTs are no more aggressive or unpredictable toward humans than many, many other breeds. Call your local (reputable, not the Petsmart kind) dog trainer and ask. Seattle City Council did extensive study into this issue, consulting experts in canine behavior and found that breed is not a reliable indicator of aggression or danger to humans. The science is clearly against your argument.

As for "widespread," that is not a breed charateristic. It is a social phenomenon. It's a fad. It comes and goes. I've observed the dog scene a long time. Yes, I acknowledge that APBTs are popular with thugs and irresponsible owners right now. But that will change (other dogs were considered more "dangerous" years ago; but years ago, we punished individuals based on individual responsibility -- now we have sheeple mentality of ban, ban, ban... even for law-abiding owners and users).

"They deserve to be singled out for some sort of special safeguards..."

Why? Because you say so or because you are afraid of them from media-pushed hysteria? I got news for you. There are breeds that are far more "dangerous" than APBTs due to size, power and temperament (territoriality plus dominance). Ever hear of Presa Canarios? Some call them Pit Bulls on steroids. Ever hear of Tosa Fighting Dogs? How about Dogo Argentinos? My guess is that your don't know whole lot about these breeds (except perhaps the Presa Canarios that gained infamy during the mauling-killing in Berkeley). Why is that? Simple answers: the knuckleheads haven't heard of them yet, they may be too expensive due to limited stock in country as of now and so on. Not because they are less "dangerous" or "aggressive" than APBTs.

"..and that predicting another breed would be as bad in their absence is both speculative, and no excuse for present inaction."

You got it backwards. You are speculating that enacting special restrictions or bans on a particular breed will result in fewer deaths from dog bites (oh, I'm sure there'd be fewer deaths from APBT bites if APBT numbers decline, and I am sure you'd herald that as a success even though overall number of deaths from dog bites would not likely change; kinda like heralding decline in "gun" suicides after banning guns even as overall suicide rate does not decline, as people use other means to kill themselves).

Unless you have scientific evidence that something unique about APBT is leading to these deaths, you are the one engaging in speculation. You are, further, confusing coincidence with causal relationships.

I repeat again. This is not a "Pit Bull" problem. It is a people problem. You acknowledge that stats were different at one time. Does that mean APBTs as a breed were different back then? They somehow got more dangerous as a breed suddenly in the last ten years?

No. The vast majority of responsible breeders and owners still maintain the same characteristics of the traditional APBT.

The difference is the human factor. There were some sensational mauling incidents involving APBTs. Thug interests piqued, a fad began and now we have "Pit Bull problem." After the Presa Canario incident, thug interests rose greatly regarding the breed.

Whenever you have any item, product or goods (including animals) that can be used for both legitimate and illegal purposes, you have the same dynamic. If a particular item is banned, the "market" response is typically 1) underground use and/or 2) substitute that may or may not be more potent. This is not speculation. It is a widely observed social phenomenon.

Lastly, it's clear that "Freedom for me, but not for thee" is operant here. You love to use the Internet and you love to blog. Here is an analogy for you.

Kiddie porn trade through the Internet has exploded. Internet, by far, accounts for the vast majority of the kiddie porn trade today.

Is this an "Internet problem"? Or is it the same old problem of deviant criminals taking advantage of something new, different and/or popular?

Since harm is clearly being done the most in this field on the Internet, should we ban Internet use for everyone else? Or "specially regulate" or "license" Internet usage? As an avid and responsible Internet user, what special efforts are you making to curb the use of Internet for criminal (kiddie porn) purposes by others?

James, we need better historical and current data on deaths of humans and animals, due to specific, (most violent) dog breeds. In the meantime, I personally cannot agree, considering the horrifying monthly tally of attacks by pit bulls, that more cannot be done.

As a plain matter of fact, regardless of what you or I think, bans on pit bulls are increasingly being proposed, a number have already been adopted, and Denver's was recently upheld in court. As the attacks continue, pressures will increase, in certain locales, for consideration of bans, and pit bull owners will be forced more in the direction of peer education and outreach, and support of stricter local licensing schemes. This seems a reasonable middle ground, and it is where things are headed.

Your Internet analogy is interesting. You argue that because I use the Internet I bear some responsibility for those who misuse it, by exploiting children. The difference is they are invisible and geographically diffuse, a virtual community, perhaps, as opposed to an actual physical community with all its increased opportunities for enforcing norms of responsible conduct and public safety.

While a Net-using parent cannot stop all Net-enabled child exploiters (I am using this awkward term to avoid more common phraseology which draws search-engine driven comment spam, in case you're wondering), a parent can at least fairly easily prevent his/her child from being exploited on the Internet. In comparison, there is far less assurance that a pit bull passing by on a leash at Alki Beach, or in a park, won't suddenly break free and eat half your kid's head, or your dog, in an instant; or come out of nowhere, unleashed and unattended, to rip the flesh of adults or children right outside their homes. It happens again, and again, and again.

It is that more substantial physical threat, one involving the potential for serious bodily injury, permanent disfigurement, or as we see several times monthly now, death, that warrants local and pro-active peer outreach by responsible pit bull owners, plus close consideration of stricter licensing requirements.

Matt:

"...we need better historical and current data on deaths of humans and animals, due to specific, (most violent) dog breeds."

You realize, statistically, correlations and causal relationships two different things, right? By using your logic, we ought to specially license or regulate black Americans, since the latter commit proportionately greater number of violent crimes per capita. But we do not. Why is that? When you answer that, you have the same answer as to why breed-only ban or regulation makes no sense.

"In the meantime, I personally cannot agree, considering the horrifying monthly tally of attacks by pit bulls, that more cannot be done."

Simple answer. Hold the owners of the offending dogs (whatever the breed) responsible, both civil and criminal where necessary. Remember individual responsibility? Suddenly that principle is out of the window where you have no interest or stake, I see.

"As a plain matter of fact, regardless of what you or I think, bans on pit bulls are increasingly being proposed..."

Doesn't make it right, does it? Since more people are non-smokers than not, I'm sure, legislatively-speaking, a total ban on smoking anywhere could conceivably pass too. I don't smoke and I don't like it, but is it right just because it would be popular?

"...and pit bull owners will be forced more in the direction of peer education and outreach, and support of stricter local licensing schemes. This seems a reasonable middle ground, and it is where things are headed."

"Reasonable." Ah, the vocabulary of statists. "Reasonable" gun control. "Reasonable" restrictions on bloggers, ad naseum. And even when you are able to ban the breed altogether and there are still illegal Pits in the possession of thugs, drug dealers, bad owners etc. (leaving the breed to be "developed" underground devoid of any responsible breeding, outlawed for responsible citizens), what will you do then?

"Your Internet analogy is interesting. You argue that because I use the Internet I bear some responsibility for those who misuse it..."

No. That's exactly the opposite of what I am saying. I am saying that neither you nor the responsible APBT owner bears any responsibility or special obligation because what other individuals do with your particular choice of expression, goods or animal ownership.

"The difference is they are invisible and geographically diffuse, a virtual community, perhaps, as opposed to an actual physical community with all its increased opportunities for enforcing norms of responsible conduct and public safety."

Please. That's such a cop-out. The underlying principle is exactly the same -- responsible owners/users bearing the cost for the irresponsible ones.

"In comparison, there is far less assurance that a pit bull passing by on a leash at Alki Beach, or in a park, won't suddenly break free and eat half your kid's head, or your dog, in an instant; or come out of nowhere, unleashed and unattended, to rip the flesh of adults or children right outside their homes. It happens again, and again, and again."

Yes. And kids die again and again by drowning in two gallon buckets and from ingesting Clorox or other common household chemicals. Do you ban them too? I kid you not, more kids are killed by common household chemicals than guns or dogs (not just APBTs) combined. Where's the hysteria over Clorox?

"that warrants local and pro-active peer outreach by responsible pit bull owners, plus close consideration of stricter licensing requirements."

Where's your outreach for Clorox, firearms, Internet, cars and a host of other things that can be misused by individuals? I'm sure you use some of them.

"This breed needs owners who are knowledgeable and realistic about their breed's characteristics, and who will take their dog to a good obedience class. Responsible pit bull owners should also: research the breed before adoption (www.pbrc.net); have a yard with a secure, six foot fence and avoid leaving the dogs alone in the yard; provide their dogs with a tremendous amount of exercise once full grown (such as biking and jogging); consider letting the dog live indoors; spay females to prevent unwanted litters and neuter males for the same reason and to help curb aggression; keep their dogs leashed in public; extensively socialize dogs; realize that dog aggression can surface in the most gentle pets; Never leave a pit bull alone with children; keep doors closed to prevent escaping and avoid taking mature pit bulls to off-leash dog parks."

Sound advice, by the way. Only, every responsible shelter, dog owners group, etc. encourages this responsible ownership for ALL breeds of dogs, not just APBTs.

By the way, again, I want to make it clear. I don't ever intend to own a APBT (or any Terrier for that matter). *I* have been attacked by an APBT. My take on this issues is formulated from a long interests in the study of dogs, personal experience in dog rearing and training and, yes, unfortunately being attacked by several breeds, not just from hysterical newspaper clippings or "Google" news service.

Breed-specific ban or regulation is a bad idea. It's counter-productive like gun control, and the vast majority of scientists, breeders, animal shelters and others in the dog world agree.

Only when irreponsible journalism and hysteria egged on by such sensationalism devoid of scientific understanding (let alone understanding of simple statistical nuances) rear their ugly heads do "Pit Bull bans" pass.

And that's all I'll say on this topic since I'm probably hoaging up Matt's bandwith uselessly.

Sorry, sorry, I meant to link to this in the last entry.

http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/news_columnists/article/0,1299,DRMN_86_3768197,00.html

"What happens, I ask, when all of the Denver pit bulls have been rounded up and put down?

He would not want to be a Malamute, he said.

A male Malamute attacked and killed a 7-year-old girl in Fruita last Saturday night.

'It is not the breed,' an unsmiling Bill Suro said."

*By the way, I do disagree with the column in one fashion. I don't think dog enforcement has anything to do with race. But I do think that it has something to do with economic and social standing. Just as in child welfare enforcement, the local governments don't like to tangle with wealthy, educated and powerful people who can fight back. They go after the poor, uneducated and the weak who can be bullied easily.

Sad but true? I own 4 pit bulls and have owned pits for many years .I have never had one growl at anyone or ever bite anyone.That is the truth when socalized frequently at early age with children and other pets ,diciplined stearnly for wrong behavior and bred right the american pit bull terrior makes a great companion .My dogs are the most loving dogs I have ever seen there tails never stop wagging and they love children.
My neighbor constantly critisized my ownership of my dogs.I gave him the facts that pits and bulldog type dogs in general accounted for only 9 percent of dog bite fatalaties .So that means people if you are going to ban dogs you will have to ban huskys ,dalmations,dobermans,rottweilers,shepards,malamutes where will it end .Now after a couple of years being around my dogs and a his children playing with them the same neighbor who has been so adament against pit bull ownership is wanting a puppy out of my next littler!!! So my point is with pit bulls as with any breed proper rearing is a must and with pit bull haters education is the key to acceptance .Also before I go the post you put about the boy in san fransico is false the father said the dogs were aggressive sometimes they were not always friendly they had tried to bite before no dog owner should ever keep a dog that bites .It is time that we stop blaming this wonderful breed and let the blame lie with the owners

i would just like to no how many pit bull haters out there have actually owned them or done any research on the breed. i happen to own three lovely pit bulls who love people and saved my step son from drowning in a creek when he was a year old, to my surprise he did not save the boy to chew off his face but because he is a great dog who loves everyone and if you check your history you will learn that these face sucking child killing monsters were bred to be agressive against other dogs and not against humans so meet some responsible owners and their dogs watch their behavior do some research and shut up!

CG, where do you get your information from? Have you personally witnessed this "transformation" from pet to non-tolerant society dangerous dog? No? Oh, really...funny...you see, my family had a pitbull since he was a few months old until we had to put him to sleep when he was 12 because he lost all control of his bodily functions, and appeared to have a sort of dementia. So, for you to (with no apparent justification or reasoning) make such an overarching statement is interesting, to say the least. "Sad but true...", yeah, I would be tempted to apply that quote to your own general statement as well.

Knowing very little about pitbulls, those who train them, or those who suffer from them, I have nothing to contribute to the substance of this debate; but I would like to comment briefly on the structure of the argument, since it is a very common problem in democratic politics.

How should we resolve conflicts between a small, intense minority (in this case, pitbull owners), who care deeply about some interest (in this case, rearing and enjoying the company of pitbulls) and a larger group of people who share a vague but increasing anxiety about how that interest is indulged?

One possible, but not very promising, solution is to appeal to some moral principle that should restrict the choices available. There is a libertarian presumption, for example, against pre-emptive regulation in favor of civil and criminal rules that would encourage personal responsibility. Regulation is suspect, partly because it is too difficult to forsee all the consequences, too hard to trust the motives of those doing the regulating, and too easy for majorities to impose costs on minorities without compensation. As a rule of thumb, the libertarian presumption makes a good deal of sense. As an inflexible moral principle, however, it is unlikely to appeal to enough people to resolve the dispute. All government, at bottom, is a weighing of costs and benefits, so why should we not do that here?

As the many comments on this posting reveal, unraveling the costs and benefits of pitbull regulation is not a simple matter.

The pitbull advocates claim that attacks by this animal are relatively infrequent, and ask why their interest should be sacrificed because of an irrational fear whipped up by publicity given to horrific but rare events. If we are more likely to die from a falling coconut than a shark attack, the same may be true of death by pitbull.

There is some force to this argument. But the proponents of regulation point out with equal force that however small the risk of pitbull attack may be it is not zero. Why should the fears of a majority not trump the hobbies of a minority where life and death is at stake? Also, not a bad question.

Matt has proposed licensing as an intermediate solution. I am more than a little skeptical of this, simply because the standards for licensing would have to be so much more complicated than for, say, automobile licensing. Raising and training and pitbull seems much more like parenting (something else we do not license)than driving a car.

How about instituting a scheme of assurance, like the one we require for automobile drivers, as an alternative? The premiums required for such a policy would give us a much more reliable sense of the risks of owning a pitbull than any partisan debate is likely to do.

It may be objected that there is no suitable monetary compensation for having your face ripped off or your life taken away, but this is not considered an insuperable objection to auto policies, and assurance companies regularly attempt to quantify the value of a life and the risk that it may be ended. Why not let them do so here?

Will an assurance scheme make dog owners more responsible by giving them an incentive to reduce their premiums; or will it encourage more negligence by allowing them to lay off the risks with a premium payment?

I do not know, but I would prefer to try something like this before moving to an outright ban.

[I have used the word "assurance" because your blogsite will not allow the word beginning with "in--."]

Okay--let's get real, people--Do you TRULY think that exterminating a whole BREED of dogs would solve the problem? Let's just play this out: First the "Pit Bull", then the Rottweiler, then the GSD, and so on. As if the unsovory scum who abuse and mis-use dogs wouldn't just move on to another breed. PU-LEEZE!!! What happened to putting the onus back on the DOG OWNER where it belongs??? Oh, wait! That would be too simple and the government couldn't WASTE countless taxpayer $$$ in the process. Isn't it wonderful that the government is protecting us? BULLSHIT!!! Oh, yes, just so you have a firm grasp on what a ban would entail, normally under the name "Pit Bull", the legislative body lumps American Pit Bull Terrier, American Staffordshire Terrier, Staffordshire Bull Terrier, Bull Terrier (good old Spuds MacKenzie), American Bulldog, all the Mastiff type dogs, as well as any other dog they can sneak in there along with mixes and anything that remotely resembles a "Pit Bull"--Hello all you Boxer lovers-welcome to our own personal Hell.

As for Christmasghost's statement that these dogs "turn" after a year--Do you have a link to some concrete proof or did you read this information, written by the Truthful News Media---LOL--How Gullible--

BTW--the breed originated as a bull and later a DOG fighting line. Given that, how could you handle a dog, way back in the day, that was people-aggressive? Or, better yet, how can it list as one of the top stolen breeds in the country if , as the media would have you believe, they are all man-biters? Hmmm, Food For Thought

I work long and hard for the measly crumbs the Federal Government leaves me with and if I CHOOSE to spend, boosting the economy, of course, traveling all over the country Showing and Weight Pulling my APBTs and obeying the law doing it, Why does anyone feel they have the RIGHT to take that away from me? Again, look at the FACTORS that surround dogs and deal with those issues rather than putting a band-aid on a problem with Society in general

I am looking to help the UNDERGROUND Pit's in SF.
If anyone can e-mail me contact information I would appreciate it. I am legit with 2 Pit's who are my life and will do anything to help.
Renee

I am looking to help the UNDERGROUND Pit's in SF.
If anyone can e-mail me contact information I would appreciate it. I am legit with 2 Pit's who are my life and will do anything to help.
Renee

I own a Pit Bull, and he is the most loving, almost sissy-like creature I have ever encountered. I am tired of people owning this particular dog, mistreating it, and turning it into a vicious animal. Just like a human would, dogs respond to how they are treated. I love my dog, and I would love for others to know how good they can be.

You left out an important fact in the San Francisco 12-year-old boy killing. The dogs were activily mating, i.e. the female was in heat. The male dog had shown protective aggression earlier in the day, thus the mother told the boy to stay in the basement. She had realized that her "happy, friendly pets" were not themselves.

If you are going to be a journalist, please get your facts straight. Too many people use this story to invoke fear, like a good dog can go bad in an instant, without rhyme or reason.

I do agree with your quote from the breeder Irma Kapsenberg. Pit bull owners need to go above and beyond to keep these dogs out of the news.

The fact that I am online seeking out websites supporting pitbulls is somewhat distrubing in-of-itself. My dog, Haile, American Staffordshire Terrier, AKA Pitbull, is a dog who has acquired a bad reputation from "bad people": irresponsible dog owners, not by anything she has ever done. She is a wonderful dog. I have had many different breed dogs in my lifetime. It sickens me to think that responsible dog owners and their dogs are being punished for the actions of "bad people". The media has played a large role in damaging the reputation of this dog...dog bites happen all the time..and who makes the papers: pitbulls. The stregnth and intelligence of the pitbull has made it attractive to the "wrong people" ....irresponsible dog owners. Dog owner (all breeds) need to write their politicians and demand they speak out against breed specific discrimination. Put pressure on law enforcement and dog officers to take down these irresponsible dog owners. Banning pitbulls is simply a "smoke screen"...a holocaust.
It is like the gun laws...people kill people with guns...bad people...what do we get...gun laws...can't get them away from the "bad people", so take the right to bear arms away from the responsible gun owner, so who continues to have guns..."bad people". Stop letting your rights as a responsible citizen be stomped on. Make your politicians do their jobs....stand up for your rights.

"I support Linda Blair's, fight for Pitbulls and every other animal!"

Something you should always keep in mind. It's not the breed that's the problem! It's when these beautiful, animals are placed in the wrong hands!
Pitbulls are truly, a wonderful breed! One of God's, many awesome creations! They are incredibly loyal to their masters and have many abundant qualities!

The problem arrises, when owners are irresponsible. This applies not only to Pitbulls but all animals!

God, placed the animals in our care and it is our responsibility to do so, according to his will!

Some of the bad hype you hear in the media is a result of: cross breeding, breeding and training the dogs for fighting, or illegal activities, and injecting them with steroidial syrums.

The majority of the negaitive stories are however, simply a result of irresponsible, neglectful, and careless owners! "Bottom Line!"

These magneficent animals and responsible owners should never have to suffer!

The irresponsible owners and thugs should!!!

God bless you, Linda Blair!!!
I'm with you in this fight and am backing you all the way!!!

Shawn's Linda Blair Fanclub

Pitbulls should be exterminated. They are mean, angry, abusive, and ugly. They attack anything smaller(or bigger) than them. Wait, they attack everything. Pitbulls are crazy. They should be put into a small place and burn alive.

We must weigh two things.

1) Let pitbull live

2) Have a chance of pitbull killing children and old people, no matter how small it would be.

I would choose 2. Anyone who says 1 loves animals more than human.