You go Matt. Lets eliminate this dangerous breed. A little preemptive action is warranted and long over due.

I'd also like to see this dogs banned. But, don't touch my iguana, who can also be viscious. He eats pit bulls for lunch, followed by dobies for desert. Of course, I don't take him out in public - that is the crucial differenece.

I guess all that I posted before was in vain. Matt, I am really disappointed in you. You are jumbling all kinds of factors into supporting your unscientific and illogical and largely emotion- and anecdote-based position. Yours is the classic position of "Don't try to confuse me with the fact, I've already made up my mind."

Regarding this story, I have few comments.

1. First, the owner failed to properly contain the dog, period.

2. Repeat offenders should have their dogs taken away. Much like the gun debate, statist/liberals want more regulation when EXISTING laws are not enforced very well.

3. Again, people are confusing INTER-DOG aggression with that against humans. The two are very distinct and separate in the dog world. The former does not necessarily indicate latter.

Many dog breeds have strong tendencies toward inter-dog aggression aside from APBTs, including Malamutes (yes, the cute, cudley-looking mascot for Washington Huskies), Akitas (Helen Keller's dog) and so on. Usually, high degree of dominance AND territoriality increase this trait. Many dogs have these factors, because they are what aid breeding in nature (only the alpha males and females breed in a natural dog pack).

4. "But cocker spaniels can't crush your femur and take your face off and kill you." Wrong. CS's can and have. In fact, a little pint-sized Pomeranian has killed recently. So have many other breeds (mostly large dogs, of course). Remember that 79% of fatalities in dog killings are by breeds other than pits.

5. We all have anecdotes like we have assholes. I have been involved in dog attacks many times in Seattles and I have the animal control records to prove it. I've got more anecdotes about dogs than most of you here (some like Matt never had dogs and quite frankly don't know jack about them, but like to spout a few Google-clippings to make authoritative statements). In all the attacks I experienced, only one involved APBT or a related breed, and I could tell the owner was a complete moron and did not know what she was doing with her dog.

Despite all the emotion that anecdotes to engender, we have to rely on statistics to tell an accurate, overall picture. As I posted before, as a category, "unneutered male" dogs (75%) account for far more fatalities than "Pit Bull" (21%). In fact, the two next breeds, outnumber "Pit Bull" fatalities. Statistically (and without factoring in individual responsibility), banning the next two breeds on the list would achieve slightly greater result than banning a pit. Of course, mandating neutering of dogs would have even a greater result per stats.

Of course, stats change. There were dog fatalities in the past and an overwhelming majority of such killings were done by breeds that were popular at the time, not pits -- which shows that even more than stats-based policy, strengthening existing enforcement of responsible ownership matter more than responding to fluctuating patterns of dog ownership and breeding.

Lastly, I quote from a researcher from Seattle:

"'We can assign a dog [genetically] to a breed, but we can't tell what behavior it will have,' said Dr. Elaine Ostrander, a geneticist at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center and University of Washington. 'There is huge variation in behavior between dogs within breeds.'" ("Collie or Pug? Study Finds the Genetic Code," NYT 05/21/2004).

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/21/science/21dog.html?ex=1400472000&en=6b49c839cde80d81&ei=5007&partner=USERLAND

I have presented statistics, genetical analyses and other substantive facts in this debate. From the opposition, I have seen so far, highly emotional, illogical arguments and a handful of anecdotes. Some of you already made up your minds without having done any serious study of the issue or even carefully reading what I presented. I am done with this topic, and I am not going to be baited into making more posts when all Matt has to do to tilt the debate is to post one anecdote prominently or cite a supposed and unconfirmed "dog trainer," leaving me to make tiny little lettered comments to counter.

All I can say is that I am very disappointed by Matt's hypocrisy. I really thought better of him. One day, the same set of "logic" will require banning of something Matt enjoys. He can cry facts, stats and logic all he wants, but the mob will not care.

And therein lies my problem with "moderates." They are for freedom and are "conservatives" when it concerns their own enjoyment (Internet, alcohol, cars, forms of entertainment, etc.) but when something else they don't care about (say dogs or guns) is at stake, they cry "reasonable" regulation and turn into statist/liberals.

How's this? Clorox and other common household chemicals have killed far more children than guns and dogs (not just pits) combined. Where's your hysterical posts and outreach about them, hmmm? Or are they simply not sensationalistic enough for you?

Pitbulls and guns are not comparable. A gun cannot act without the owner. A pitbull can.

I do not think that every pitbull is savage. Most are probably just like any other family dog. However, there is no denying what they were bred for, so they do have genes that make them more prone to attack. That's just the way it is Butter man.

The other problem, of course, is that owners of pitbulls tend to be the most irresponsible of dog owners. We ban some people from owning guns, but we don't regulate who owns a pitbull.

Just today, I say a tattoed guy jogging down Genessee with his pitbull steps ahead and NOT ON A LEASH. That pissed me off royally and, unfortunately, that is the sort of behavoir one can expect from your average pitbull owner.

I say, ban these dogs from the city. Ban them from the county. Ban them from the state. If these people want a dog, they can go to the pound and get a gentle dog that would be gratefull for the food and a place to sleep.

as much as i hate to say that all pits should be banned....they should. there has been much too much bad breeding going on with a breed that already has an attitude. let's not forget what they were originally bred for....that has not gone away.
and people think they are like any other dog...they are not.
as the owner of a bull terrier [ i.e.spuds mackenzie] a breed that is very laid back and calm, i still make her tow the line all the time.all the bully breeds have one thing in common....you can't allow any grey area when training them or living with them because of the power of their jaws.[as one writer described them..."jaws more like a great white shark than a short white dog"]most people are just too lazy to follow through with that....and you have to.
my dog's idea of the perfect day is sleeping on the couch with the cats and EATING their food.
but thanks to all the pit attacks people are afraid of her when they see her even though she looks nothing like a pit bull. i mean...the dog has a head like a football....it must be her smirky grin........
now ....once you cross a pit with a lab or some other laid back dog you have a great family dog ala little rascals.....

I feel sorry for everyone who thinks banning a breed is the answer. They are motivated by nothing other than ignorance and fear. And I would be willing to bet they have never met a pit bull, seen one in person or can even identify one correctly. Banning one breed does not address the true problem of irresponsible OWNERS - it incorrectly focuses the attention on dogs who are victims of their circumstances.
Can you find the "pit bull?"
http://www.pitbullsontheweb.com/petbull/findpit.html

Ignorant misguided individuals have no business opining about a breed they know nothing about.

I have known a number of pit bull type dogs in my life and have a few observations to make:

1. Many are very nice dogs -- loving, kind, loyal, etc.

2. A large number of people who buy purebred pit bull type dogs are looking for aggressive/scary dogs.

3. Pit bull type dogs have an ability to inflict harm out of proportion to their size.

4. Pit bull type dogs require more training to control their prey drive than many other dogs. This is especially a problem with dog on dog aggression.

These observations do not suggest that breed specific legislation be adopted, but they do suggest that pit bull owners have an increased duty to train and control their dogs (as compared with most other breeds). Animal control also has to understand that, once a pit bull type dog becomes aggressive towards humans or non-aggressive dogs, there is little the owner can do to "turn off" the prey drive; thus, vicious dog laws need to be fully enforced. I would suggest a "two strikes and your out" type rule.

By the way, my elderly and completely non-aggressive German Sheperd has been attacked (unprovoked) twice (by two different dogs) in the last month by pit bull type dogs. She had to get sewn up the first time and I had to kick the $#@% out the pit to keep her from getting mauled the second time. I will no longer put up with irresponsable dog ownership.

It's ridiculous to think that one particular breed should be banned. ALL dogs are dangerous
and ALL dogs should be banned in America.

In fact it is the smaller breeds of dogs that
seem to be the most vicious - ready to bite and
attack at any moment. In fact, two different children on my block have been attacked and bitten in the past year alone - one by a cocker spaniel and the other by a miniture poodle.

I think statistics will show that ALL breeds of dogs are the problem.

We need a ban on ALL canines now, especially the smaller breeds.