Advertisement

Archive for Sunday, August 20, 2006

Lawrence Humane Society reiterates stance against pit bull ban

August 20, 2006

Advertisement

News reports these past few weeks have been hard for dog lovers in our area. The media have placed pit bulls on center stage once again in regard to the tragic and preventable death of a woman in Kansas City. Even in our own backyards, it seems, no one is safe from vicious dog attacks.

All good citizens wish this these attacks could be avoided, and all of us wish we had at our disposal a means of stopping this problem.

But at the risk of disturbing those Kansans who are working to institute a ban against pit bulls, the Lawrence Humane Society would again like to state our position in regard to these situations: We stand opposed to breed bans based on the abundance of statistics that show these bans are simply not effective.

We choose to stand behind such legislation as vicious dog laws and anti-tethering ordinances that have better proven success when it comes to protecting our county's citizens.

It comes down to the simple fact that the problem with vicious dogs lies with the owners, not with the breeds themselves.

Think about what is perhaps the most endearing trait of the domesticated dog: his willingness to please. Dogs learn what the alpha member of their pack considers acceptable or desirable behavior by such cues as receiving verbal praise, affection or food. If, from puppyhood, an animal raised with little food or water is rewarded with basic sustenance for his extremely aggressive behavior, isn't it logical that this animal will continue to act this way to receive what he needs to survive? He is doing what obviously pleases his master.

Accelerate this situation by using this training method on a breed that is strong-jawed and powerfully built, and it's basically the same as handing a terrorist bomb builder his own private stash of plutonium.

Who is really the offender in these situations? It's not the dog, who is what he is biologically. It's the owner who has raised him in unthinkable conditions, who works to strengthen his muscle mass and jaw power, who teaches him to attack anything that moves.

These ignorant, lowbrow abusers are creating weapons that can detonate at any moment, provoked or not. These idiots can do it to pit bulls or German shepherds, rottweilers or chows, or - guess what - other breeds, like golden retrievers, miniature poodles or Pomeranians.

It simply doesn't matter what breed is being abused. ANY breed will respond to abusive training methods by becoming vicious and attacking at will. It's entirely up to the owner to determine how the dog will turn out. It's up to the owner to raise a well-adjusted animal who can be kept under control.

So if a city bans pit bulls today, will it ban another breed tomorrow? One town in Kansas is trying it. They've already banned four breeds and are standing ready, ordinance in hand, to ban the next breed that bites someone.

Based on that logic, let's see: I know a dachshund who nipped me on the ankle last year, and that's the same breed that tried to bite me once when I was a little kid. Sounds like a pattern to me. Ban them?

No. Banning is simply not the answer. And we're seeing this from statistics. Since Lawrence and Douglas County put dangerous dog, vicious dog and anti-tethering ordinances on the books, Animal Control and the Lawrence Humane Society have recorded a notable reduction in the numbers of reported bite cases, the numbers of cruelty and neglect cases, and the numbers of calls regarding vicious or aggressive dogs.

Our legislation has put the responsibility where it belongs: on the owners.

Kansas City has the ban, but their animal control officers report knowledge of hundreds of pit bulls and mixes living in their jurisdiction. No one has that much time to go after every dog who fits the description. Topeka tried the pit bull ban and ultimately had to rescind the ordinance because they simply could not afford the man-hours needed to chase down every animal.

Think about it logically: If you worked for the city and received reports of both vicious dogs threatening people and sightings of pit bulls sitting in their own backyards, how would you prioritize the calls? Certainly the most immediate need would be the active threats. Backed by a vicious dog ordinance, you as a servant of the city could do the most immediate good by taking the vicious dogs and arresting and fining their owners, not by removing an animal who may in fact have been lovingly raised and is a perfectly fine family pet.

Is every town that institutes a pit bull ban confident that it can remove every single pit bull in its jurisdiction? Are these towns confident that in this litigious culture, they can do their job with 100 percent efficiency so they will remain free of lawsuits should they miss that one dog who bites or attacks? Can any town afford even one such lawsuit? Should any town even be promising that it can by instituting such a ban?

We at the Lawrence Humane Society stand by our belief that owners bear the responsibility for their animals. If an animal has been raised to respond so viciously that the owner cannot assure us that he or she can without question control that animal, then we have a problem. That owner needs to be held accountable, and that animal needs to be taken away.

We again ask you to help the Lawrence Humane Society keep Douglas County safe. We will investigate all calls made to us regarding mistreated or vicious animals. If you know of any such situation, call us at 843-6835. All reports will be confidential.

Sue Novak is president of the Lawrence Humane Society board.

Comments

divo77 7 years, 11 months ago

It is good to know that there are some halfway intelligent persons governing this town. The pit bull question will rage on. But it is important to remember that the problem is with humans, not the breed of dog. The media is the worst aggressor in this. People get bit because they fear the animals. Next to any other breed, pit bulls will be the last to bite you. They love people, but when people are afraid, thats when they get bit. The scariest thing about other cities is that they are killing all of the good dogs. Because these breeds sometimes fall into the hands of "questionable citizens"; it will be these people who do not turn in their dogs, leaving the population with the dangerous ones. This is why the media needs to drop the subject. Instead of posting graphic pictures on the news, how about a 20 min piece on "what to do when a loose dog runs at you". This would save alot more people and not piss off people who like dogs. The American Pit Bull was the very first registered breed of dog in the U.S.. alot of people dont know that. If this matter presses on it will be one of thousands of species that humans have caused to become extinct.

Devin Shea

0

Alexander Smith 3 years, 8 months ago

Divo77, your partially right and mostly wrong. There are dogs such as rotts and pitbulls that are genetically programmed for aggressive behavior and has been that way for untold decades. No matter how much they try to breed it out of them the issue is still there. If these dogs are banned in so many states and cities then your point is invalid and support for these dogs. If there are laws and I can guarantee millions of dollars in studies, lawsuits, and deaths/injurys is more proof then your opinion. However, the owner is a part of the problem. So many people think “my dog is nice he won’t hurt anyone” but then a little child sees one, gets scared takes off, the dog thinks he is playing and runs the kid down. The kid is injured. You think that’s okay? I see this happen many times. Pitts are banned for a reason along with Rotts, there is proof and there are facts. Personal blind opinion does not apply with the safety of children.

0

Alexander Smith 3 years, 8 months ago

Add a second note, the people at the Lawrence Humane societ are very confused. The issue does ride on the owner, however there are breeds that have been built for agressive behviour from creation. Pitbulss are banned from a lot of countries, again, if a country has banned certain dogs in certain areas there was research done that invalidated the humane societies opinion.

0

timetospeakup 3 years, 8 months ago

Really, banned from "a lot of countries"? Care to cite a source?

0

kernal 3 years, 8 months ago

Google. You'll find it there. There are six Western European countries and others. Many more countries haven't banned pit bulls per se, but have breed specific bans which likely include pit bulls. Look at it this way. Poor little pit bulls would have to wear sweaters and doggie coats in most of the European countries during the winter; it's too cold for them. Would you want to be a pit bull living in Norway?

0

timetospeakup 3 years, 8 months ago

"Google" isn't a source. Nice try.

I wouldn't want to be anything living in Norway in the winter, that's not the point.

Dangerous owners make dangerous dogs, not the other way around.

0

kernal 3 years, 8 months ago

Then you have to say if Fluff Ball, the miniature Yorkie, "attacks" your neighbors two year old kid because it thinks the kid wants to play, put down the owner and Fluff Ball. It's not that simple.

0

Commenting has been disabled for this item.