Pit-bull service-dog exemption rejected by Denver City Council

• You must be joking: you're basing your opinion on what people say on an internet message board? That's no way to creat public policy. What a joke.

• Both of those city's have a far greater population than Dumbver. I am highly sceptical of those numbers.

• Highly effective in costing tax payers millions of dollars! Denver is already 180 million + in the hole, get over this stupin non effective law. All it does is hurt us in the long run. Lakewood boarders Dumbver and has no pittbull ban, is there an increase in attacks? No. Do people go to Lakewood and run through the streets in fear? No.The Denver city counsel is sad and so are some of you people. 100% unable to admit when it's wrong and we are all paying for it.

• Do not compare your dog to people. That is just idiotic. When your dog can explain to you who developed the theory of relativity, who formulated a comprehensive heliocentric cosmology, and who became an early comedic film genius, then you can compare your dog to Jews, the Polish and gypsies. And a breed is not equivalent to race or ethnicity. Or maybe you know of a successful eugenics program in which people were forced to breed by an outside influence that controlled for physical, behavioral and temperamental characteristics.

• In the '70s, it was german shepherds that were deadly and vicious. In the '80s, it was dobermans. Now it's pit bulls. When will people like you stop blaming dogs for their owners' lack of responsibility?

• I agree with this and it should apply to all breeds.

• You are wrong. Any responsible pit bull owner/breeder will not tolerate and sort of aggression to be passed on. And anyone who claims to be a responsible pit owner/breeder that says "it's part of what makes a pit bull" will be chastened from the real community of owners. As with any owner of any breed, a responsible owner/breeder will not allow aggression.

• You, sir or madame, are ignorant and are stereotyping in a disgustingly large amount. I own a pit bull and care for her dearly. She's on her way to becoming a Therapy Dog. People who are misinformed by the bad publicity of pit bulls are shocked to see how well behaved and loving she is to everyone (the elderly, children, men, women, race, cat, dog, etc.). I also own a dachsund-chihuahua mix and they are best friends. Do your research and gain some knowledge. Those who only know what they hear from the media really don't know much.

• totally agree breeders should be licensed and all other dogs should be spayed and neutered

• A breed ban is akin to racism. A breed ban is implying that all members of the breed are bad and therefore must be put to death. Hmmm. Didn't someone else already do this to the Jews, Polish, Gypsies and other "undesired" races? Breed bans and exterminations of said breeds are akin to hate crimes. Whether the method of killing is injection, gas chamber or other means the intention is the same: the breed/race is bad so destroy it. What makes more sense is a ban on backyard breeding (of all breeds) and limiting breeding so that the pet market isn't flooded with hundreds of thousands of dogs that will end up in shelters when their ignorant owners can't or won't take care of them. Ban puppy mills, ban ignorant owners from owning dogs, enforce training legislation (people training and dog training) so that any dog born to be purchased or adopted by anyone will have a chance at a good, long life without having to be put to death due to breed prejudice or ignorance.

• Laws and regulations are NEVER enacted for the responsible and well-behaved Laws and regulations always become necessary when the irresponsible and dangerous pose a threat to society. When laws and regulations to control the irresponsible and dangerous are deemed necessary, they always limit the freedoms of the responsible and well-behaved. But the freedoms of the responsible and well-behaved are usually impacted minimally, because they already largely conformed to the law on their own. The best example of this is speed limits. Many people would be able to judge a safe speed to travel on a highway based on traffic and weather conditions. They would travel faster in good weather conditions and little traffic and slower in bad weather conditions and high traffic on their own. And, to address your next point, not everyone follows the speed limit, but that does not mean that speed limit laws are ineffective in improving public safety. Anyone arguing that BYB pit bull breeders are not irresponsible and ought not be regulated is wrong. Anyone arguing that pit bull pet owners who do not already spay and neuter their pets is not irresponsible and ought not be regulated is wrong. Anyone arguing that pit bull owners who cannot afford pay for the grievous damage their animals are capable inflicting ought not be regulated is wrong. Anyone arguing that a community cannot look at the specific problems facing their particular community and vote to address that problem is wrong.

• Laws and regulations are NEVER enacted for the responsible and well-behaved Laws and regulations always become necessary when the irresponsible and dangerous pose a threat to society. When laws and regulations to control the irresponsible and dangerous are deemed necessary, they always limit the freedoms of the responsible and well-behaved. But the freedoms of the responsible and well-behaved are usually impacted minimally, because they already largely conformed to the law on their own. The best example of this is speed limits. Many people would be able to judge a safe speed to travel on a highway based on traffic and weather conditions. They would travel faster in good weather conditions and little traffic and slower in bad weather conditions and high traffic on their own. And, to address your next point, not everyone follows the speed limit, but that does not mean that speed limit laws are ineffective in improving public safety. Anyone arguing that BYB pit bull breeders are not irresponsible and ought not be regulated is wrong. Anyone arguing that pit bull pet owners who do not already spay and neuter their pets is not irresponsible and ought not be regulated is wrong. Anyone arguing that pit bull owners who cannot afford pay for the grievous damage their animals are capable inflicting ought not be regulated is wrong. Anyone arguing that a community cannot look at the specific problems facing their particular community and vote to address that problem is wrong.

• Its about fairness and NOT singling out a particular breed based on the actions of other dogs. Not all "pit bull" type dogs attack someone, so when you force rules and regulations on people whos animals have never done anything it doesnt sit well with us as responsible owners. While I know you think you have the answers dogcentric, you are still forcing laws on people whos dogs have done nothing. Correct?? Or am I seeing this wrong. I know its a futile effort to try and get through to you so I am done with this and am going to utilize my time in ventures where I can deal with rationally thinking people. As responsible owners we dont want anyone to get hurt by any breed of dog especially when they label the dog as a "pit bull". You lump us all together similar to what you do with dogs. I hope some day you are willing to see the bigger picture, but until next time dogcentric I say goodbye and hope you have a safe and happy holdays. Watch out for them big old mean "pit bulls".

• Cait, Here is a little project for you. Go to ANY pit bull bulletin board, even the ones populated by "responsible" pit bull people ("Pit Bull Forum," for example) and post that no responsible pit bull breeder would ever breed a pit bull with dog aggression. Or maybe post that you think that dog aggression should disqualify a pit bull int he conformation ring. I GUARANTEE you will hear from people who tell you that "dog aggression is part of what makes a pit bull a pit bull." And if you go to slightly LESS responsibly pit bull boards (say "Pit Bull Community") you will hear from plenty of pit bull breeders who think that ONLY pit bulls who are dangerous toward other dogs should be bred.

• Earlier, when "Iownarescuedpitbull" (predictably) brought up the ATTS test as scientific evidence that pit bulls are amoung the "safest" breeds, I asked IOARPB to tell us EXACTLY which prong of the ATTS is a meaningful test of dog dangerousness in her estimation. Not surprisingly, we never got an answer to that one. So, Cait, exactly which prong of the ATTS do YOU consider a meaningful test of dog dangerousness? Please be specific.

• Uh, no, Cait, I am not going to "get all up in arms" about the ATTS results of the labradors versus pit bulls. The ATTS (so beloved by pit bull people because pit bulls do okay on it) test is MEANINGLESS as a test of dangerousness (for either labradors OR pit bulls). It is primarily a test of BOLDNESS. Both labs and pit bulls tend to be reasonably bold breeds so they both do okay on the test. Less bold breeds, like shetland sheepdogs, do horribly. So when is the last time somebody died from a sheltie attack in this country? (Uh...never?) When is the last time somebody died from a pit bull attack in this country? (this week). In order to fail the ATTS test for dangerousness, a pit bull would have to be so dangerous that he would attack even a friendly person. Such pit bulls do exist, of course, but their owners aren't paying $40 to take the ATTS test. Dogs DO fail the ATTS test, but it isn't because they bite the "friendly stranger." It is because they panic at the gunshots, or won't walk across the x-pen on the ground or won't approach the umbrella opened suddenly in their face. Indeed, a dog can be lunging at the end of his leash, giving every indication of wanting to rip the throat out of the "threatening stranger" (who, of course, is no threat whatsoever) and still pass the test with flying colors. Right? Plus, a dog can be overtly dangerous to every other dog he meets and still pass the ATTS test with flying colors, right?

• I have NEVER EVER heard a person familiar with any "pit bull" breed tell me that dog aggression makes a pit bull a pit bull. GIVE ME FACTS. I see you only read the bit about the lab but failed to consider the rest of my response. Consider my next response when it's finally posted. Give me scientific proof that what you say is true. Because so far all I've gotten from you is hearsay.

• Uh, no, Cait. A well bred lab with "hallmark lab temperament" should not bite you if you "piss him off." In fact, a well bred pit bull with "hallmark pit bull temperament" should not bite you if you "piss him off." The problem is that there are VERY few "well bred pit bulls," and PLENTY of pit bulls who are bred precisely to bite either other dogs or people. And while the few "responsible" pit bull breeders do try to eliminate human aggressive pit bulls from the gene pool, very, very few even "responsible" pit bull breeders see dog aggression in pit bulls as the temperament flaw it is. They say "dog aggression is part of what makes a pit bull a pit bull. If you don't like it, get another breed." Have you NOT heard pit bull people say this? The trouble with this line of reasoning, of course, is that pit bull dog aggression doesn't just affect the person who chooses to own a pit bull, it also affects my neighbor, when she sees the pit bulls hovering over the body of her elderly mixed breed dog they just killed in her own backyard.

• PitBullPositive, As to your "point" that not all pit bulls have high levels of dog aggression, of course that is true. Some labs hate the water and don't retrieve. Some border collies won't herd and are couch potatoes. So what? With any dog trait there are always exceptions, but the reason we have breeds is that the majority of the dogs of that breed will predictably exhibit certain traits. MOST border collies are high drive and will herd stuff. MOST labs will retrieve anything thrown. And MOST pit bulls are dog aggressive. It is sort of amusing that pit bull people always whine about how not all pit bulls are highly dog aggressive. But suggest to ANY group of pit bull breeders that, for example, dog aggression should disqualify a pit bull from being bred and you will be told, absolutely for certain, that "dog aggression is part of what makes a pit bull a pit bull." They will also argue that if you only bred non-dog aggressive pit bulls, you would have no breeding stock, because so few pit bulls are non-dog aggressive. (I think this is a cop-out, myself, but I have heard the argument plenty of times). This is not the reaction you would get if you told a group of responsible lab breeders that dog aggression should disqualify a lab from being bred. They would AGREE with you. Hence the difference in outcome and the fact that no labs have killed people this year and pit bulls have killed...how many? 19 or 20?

• Pitbullpositive, OF COURSE "it won't sit well with other pit bull owners" that they can't continue to profit off breeding their pit bulls. If they were willing to be responsible just because it is the right thing to do, the problem would already be solved, wouldn't it? As to the registration requirement, the reality is that the ONLY pit bulls with (even) multigenerational hip x-rays are AKC and UKC registered. Yes, many AKC and UKC pit bulls DON'T have multigenerational hip x-rays, but virtually NO ADBA only registered (much less unregistered or otherwise registered) pit bulls do. But, hey, prove me wrong. Give us the registered name of some pit bulls that aren't either AKC or UKC registered that you think SHOULD be bred. If you want, we could make the requirement that the only pit bulls who can be intact are dogs that have multi-generational hip screens. However, there are so few of those (compare them to other breeds where many breeders are responsible--there you can find LOTS of dogs whose entire pedigree contains only fully health screened dogs--and this is typically lots more than just hip x-rays) that there probably wouldn't be a big enough gene pool for pit bull breeding to continue. In truth, pit bull people get all self-congratulatory if the dog they are breeding has x-rayed hips...forget the notion that it should come from a line of dogs with clear hips. As to the show dogs only provision, are you saying that you think it is too onerous to expect somebody who wants to be a breeder of pit bulls to even get a lousy CD on the dog before s/he breeds it? Why?

• My Labrador came from a responsible breeder and has the hallmark Lab temperament. My point was that if you provoke him, he too will bite you, regardless of his breed's history as a gentle breed. Doesn't matter the breed, any dog will bite you if you piss them off. Where did anyone say that a dog attacking another dog was normal behavior? We all know it's not, there is usually something that prompts a dog's aggression and forces it to act. In fact, dog on dog aggression is pretty abnormal. The behavior you describe to be typical of wolves is not a special case of selective inheritance, it's god damn common sense for a wolf - "No sense in fighting my packmate if we both might get injured, then we can't hunt, can't eat, and will die" and hence the development of body language signs that communicate irritability and potential aggression. --- "Not me. I am all for passing a breed specific LAW to give the state power to force them to stop irresponsibly breeding pit bulls." That doesn't make any sense when you apply some simple empirical logic to it. Again, if people who are lawfully negligent or criminal are breeding dogs, what use does a law serve to the people unwilling to follow it? And unfortunately, hardly any law regarding dogs on the books puts the OWNER as the responsible party, not the dogs. In many cases, it is the dog that's destroyed for his owner's incompetence and ignorance. Dogs are dogs, and they think and behave like dogs. The problem comes in when people magically assume dogs to have the same logic and reasoning process that human beings employ. They don't - they react according to learned behaviors, which include behaviors taught to them by man. Dogs do what you tell them or teach them to do. --- You said: "I have read "The Pit Bull Placebo." It was one of the most boring, pointless books I ever read, but I plowed through it. It is online. I doubt your local library carries it. Here is what ("Pit Bull Placebo" author) Karen Delise has to say about the intentional breeding of dogs for dangerousness: One only has to examine the Pit Bull situation in today's society to see an example of how this can and does occur with alarming frequency" Do you agree or disagree with Delise's statement?" I agree with her statement, however, we must CONTEXTUALIZE it with FACTS: responsible breeders and responsible owners are NOT BREEDING THEIR DOGS FOR AGGRESSION. I've read it too and found it a fascinating study on how the media omits the simplest of truths to create a sensationalist story and that man will scapegoat anything to avoid placing the blame on their own, cruel, negligent behaviors. Apparently, the fact you found it boring also seems to imply you also found the information too much to incorporate into your world view, or simply too glaringly contradictory to your own narrow minded view of "pit bulls" so rather than entertain an educated thought and consider it, you just let it go. --- I also fail to understand why people would be so up in arms about a breed (APBT/AmSTaff) with no history of being SPECIFICALLY bred to attack people when compared to traditional guard dogs like Rottweilers, Dobermans, and German Shepherds. In fact, the development of the APBT has documented that any dog who bit a handler when being separated from a fight or who showed aggressiveness was KILLED - that is, REMOVED FROM THE GENE POOL. And generally speaking, breeders of those breeds which were bred to attack man as their original purpose are breeding the aggressiveness OUT of their lines as well, and have been for decades, unless the case is where the dog will work as a police or protection dog. So I find your point a moot one, because the only people producing deliberately dangerous dogs are deliberately ignorant, malicious and dangerous people. --- "And if it is so simple to socialize away dog aggression in pit bulls, again, WHY CAN'T BEST FRIENDS MANAGE TO DO IT? Surely they TRIED to teach Tug that killing other dogs is "unwanted behavior," didn't they?" First off, no one ever said it was simple. It is a long, time consuming process that everyone involved with the dog needs to be committed to. But you're going to let one example with one dog negate the thousands and thousands of examples to the contrary? What about the Michael Vick dogs? Out of 51 dogs, 47 were successfully rehabilitated and placed, 3 were euthanized due to physical, medical issues and ailments due to their fighting history, and only 1 was euthanized due to extreme aggression. So because one shelter failed to rehabilitate one dog, you're going to write them all off as dog aggressive ticking time bombs? And surely all minority people are just waiting to rob us blind, right? There are irresponsible breeders out there for every breed - you yourself even acknowledge it. And your support of BSL punishes and condemns responsible, educated APBT, AmStaff, Staffie, and other bully breed owners while leaving the criminals who are the ones REALLY responsible for all of this dog abuse free to walk around impervious to the law and its consequences. --- "But the opposite is true in pit bulls. For more than a century, pit bull breeders have been breeding selectively for HEIGHTENED levels of dog aggression, and specifically for "gameness," which is the trait of NEVER stopping the attack, even if the other dog submits. It is high praise in "oldtime dogman" circles to say that a pit bull was "dead game" which means he didn't stop fighting even though he was killed in the pit. (Of course, it is also kind of an empty victory, since the dead game dog is also a dead dog). So, at one end of the spectrum we have the well bred labrador, intentionally bred for over a century by humans to have DECREASED levels of dangerousness toward other dogs. Somewhere in the middle (but tending toward the low end) we have the wolf, which is an example of "natural" levels of dangerousness toward other dogs, and off the charts on the high end, we have pit bulls--bred to attack without provocation and keep up the attack until the other dog is dead." Okay this whole section is just so much bullsh*t it's laughable. Plain and simple. Gameness does not mean the all consuming desire to kill, kill, kill. It means the desire to continue the task the HANDLER asked of the dog. Let me repeat again my point earlier made: responsible "pit bull" breeders and responsible owners are NOT BREEDING OR ENCOURAGING THEIR DOGS FOR AGGRESSION. When responsible owners adopt a "pit bull" they are aware they are becoming a public relations liaison to one of the most misunderstood breeds of dog in the world. Secondly: all dogs will display aggression towards other dogs, and "pit bull" breeds are NOT THE ONLY ONES to display it. Akitas, Dobermans, German Shepherds, Rottweilers, Chesapeake Bay Retrievers, certain herding breeds like the corgis, and a number of the molosser and mastiff breeds, including Bullmastiffs, Mastiffs, Cane Corsos, etc., ALL display incidences of dog on dog aggression. --- "...bred to attack without provocation and keep up the attack until the other dog is dead." This especially is bullsh*t and any credibility you had (which was ill to naught to begin with) has flown right out the window. APBTs, AmStaffs, Bull Terriers, and others will display the same warning behaviors as any other dog will when they feel threatened or defensive, and will adequately warn the other dog or human of their incensed state of mind. http://nationalcanineresearchcouncil.com/canines-issues/breed-bans/ - you might want to read this too before you start saying such scientifically unproven facts like "'pit bulls' were bred to attack without provocation" --- ANY DOG can become dog aggressive and mean - it is the fault of the HUMAN HANDLER who failed to socialize their dog, not the fault of the dog. Many times, when dogs are attacked by other dogs, the human handler adds to the pandemonium, usually unwittingly. How many times have you seen someone who's walking their dog tense up and shorten the leash of their dog when passing another one? The humans are oblivious to the fact that they put their dog's body language into a posture that reads as "aggressive" which can incite the other dog into a defensive state of mind. Left to their own devices, most dogs prefer to either peacefully leave the encounter, or avoid it altogether. Your ignorant statements scream the fact that you seem to believe that there has been no dog of a supposed "good" breed that has ever attacked another dog or person, which is a load of nonsense in and of itself. If you were to visit the American Temperament Testing Society, you would see that American Staffordshire Terriers and Staffordshire Bull Terriers, part of the "pit bull" type, CONSISTENTLY rank in the same temperament range the supposed "good" breeds like Golden Retrievers, Labrador Retrievers, etc. exhibit. AMERICAN PIT BULL TERRIER: 772 dogs tested; 664 passed 108 failed - 86.0% AMERICAN STAFFORDSHIRE TERRIER: 608 dogs tested; 510 passed 98 failed - 83.9% STAFFORDSHIRE BULL TERRIER: 115 dogs tested; 103 passed 12 failed - 89.6% GERMAN SHEPHERD DOG: 3,038 dogs tested; 2,559 passed 479 failed - 84.2% GOLDEN RETRIEVER: 746 dogs tested; 631 passed 115 failed - 84.6% LABRADOR RETRIEVER: 763 dogs tested; 704 passed 59 failed - 92.3% You'll notice I didn't omit the Lab's results despite the higher precentage. Before you get all up in arms about the percentage difference between the Lab and the APBT (because I can already hear it coming), remember that it's a difference of about 6%. 6 out of 100 doesn't prove all that much of a difference; planes have a 25% chance of never getting to their destination and still people fly, so I would like to insinuate a difference of 6% does not account for any increased danger or unreliability of the dog's breed. If you'll also notice, the Golden Retriever and APBT have a similar amount of dogs tested and the APBT beats out the Golden. Again, individuals should be considered on their individual merit. http://www.atts.org/index.html - has a description of the temperament test on the site.

• So only show dogs are not spayed and neutered and you think this is the magic solution that will solve the problem? Thats debatable and Im sure wont sit well with other APBT owners. As far as your statement on what most people would wish about the extinction of the breed I have to disagree with you on that as well. There thousands if not millions of owners who would disagree with your proposed methods. Your agenda is not to come up with plausible solutions your agenda is the eventual demise of breeds considered to be "pit bulls". Not all "pit bulls" have a high aggression levels thats the point Im trying to make, you consistently generalize all dogs considered to be "pit bulls". Fighting dogs is illegal, the majority of "pit bull" type dogs are not being bred to be fighting dogs. The point Im trying to make is by forcing people to do something you still will have those who will not follow the rules. The responsible owners will follow the rules and the criminals will do what they do. Drugs are illegal and if your a felon owning a weapon is illegal last time I checked it didnt stop criminals from having them.

• Michele, So what if my neighbors can "blame" the owners of the two pit bulls who killed her elderly mixed breed dog? What does THAT get them? Even if they were to sue and win (and the chances of that are decreased because there were two pit bulls standing over the body, owned by two separate people who live together, and my neighbors can't prove which one did the killing or if both participated) exactly how much do you think my neighbors will get in damages for an elderly, small, mixed breed dog? And would that amount (however much you say it should be) satisfy YOU if your dog was wrongfully killed in its own yard? Honestly, the rest of the dog owning world is getting kind of sick about being told by pit bull owners to just suck it up when you increase dangerousness to our dogs because you want to own dangerous dogs.

• Sorry, pit bull people, but you need to educate yourself on canine behavior if you think deadly attacks on other dogs are "normal" among dogs. All dogs descend from wolves. A wolf who typically fights to the death would very soon be a dead wolf, because the strength of the wolf is the pack and even if he is successful killing off the other wolves, he won't survive long by himself. Plus, (As Tug demonstrated) even the winner of a fatal dog (wolf) fight is likely to have serious wounds so the dog (wolf) who engages in really serious attacks ends up weakened and injured him/herself. Such an animal is not likely to survive to breed. Which is why wolves the wolves that survived to breed are the ones who developed an exquisitly sensitive system to AVOID fights. They typically try to intimidate the other wolf into backing down by raising their hackles ("look how big and powerful I am"), showing their teeth ("look at what big teeth I have") and growling ("hear how deep and scary my voice is"). If these tactics don't work, the fight that ensues is almost always more about posturing and show than about trying to seriously injure the other wolf. When the other wolf submits, the fight is over. So wolf behavior (try to avoid fights, few serious injuries in fights that can't be avoided) is the baseline for dogs. But dogs have been SELECTIVELY bred by humans for many centuries. In most breeds, humans have recognized that dog aggression is a pretty serious temperament flaw and breed away from it. So the average dog almost certainly has even LESS serious levels of dog aggression than the average wolf, because of all this human intercession. But the opposite is true in pit bulls. For more than a century, pit bull breeders have been breeding selectively for HEIGHTENED levels of dog aggression, and specifically for "gameness," which is the trait of NEVER stopping the attack, even if the other dog submits. It is high praise in "oldtime dogman" circles to say that a pit bull was "dead game" which means he didn't stop fighting even though he was killed in the pit. (Of course, it is also kind of an empty victory, since the dead game dog is also a dead dog). So, at one end of the spectrum we have the well bred labrador, intentionally bred for over a century by humans to have DECREASED levels of dangerousness toward other dogs. Somewhere in the middle (but tending toward the low end) we have the wolf, which is an example of "natural" levels of dangerousness toward other dogs, and off the charts on the high end, we have pit bulls--bred to attack without provocation and keep up the attack until the other dog is dead.

• PitBullPositive, Yes. If all pit bulls were spayed/neutered there would eventually be no more pit bulls. While a lot of people (probably most, if you want to be truthful about it) would think this is a good thing, it is fine with me if pit bulls continue to exist if there is some way to address the pit bull crisis. Which is why the proposal I have consistenly put forth allows AKC and UKC-PR registered show dogs to remain intact. In fact, the definition of "show dog" I would urge would include any dog whose owner can provide proof that it is being regularly (say, three times a year) shown OR titled in AKC or UKC conformation, agility or obedience. (Probably not novice rally--I'm easy, but I'm not quite THAT easy). So all a prospective pit bull breeder would have to do to keep his/her AKC or UKC-PR registered pit bull intact under the law I propose would be to get a lousy CD on the dog. Is that too hard for somebody who claims to be qualified to be a pit bull breeder? Since I have posted the details (including the exception for AKC and UKC-PR registered show dogs) about a zillion times, PitBullPositive, I have to wonder why you are now asking about the elimination of pit bulls because they are "all" going to be spayed/neutered. You know that the proposal I make does NOT require them all to be spayed/neutered, right? In the end, the actual "argument" against this proposal boils down to pit bull people saying they don't want anything breed specific because they are against anything breed specific because they hate laws that are breed specific. This isn't exactly a rational argument. It is kind of...um...circular. Indeed, I sometimes think that one of the reasons pit bull people respond with such incredible hostility towards me (name calling, etc.) (Joel, on another board, was a notable exception and actually talked about issues) is because hostility is all they have. They aren't able to make a rational case that this proposal wouldn't be good for both communities and for pit bulls.

• Dogcentric: You wrote: I am interested that you say that the dog aggression Tug exhibited (i.e. lethal to other dogs) is "normal" for pit bulls. Then you say that if somebody doesn't "like" the traits of pit bulls, "move on." Tug exhibited NORMAL behavior. It was lethal to the other dogs because of the fencing, or should I say, lack thereof. And yes, if you don't like the traits that this breed has, then move on. ALL dogs can display dog aggression. YOU WROTE: My neighbors don't much care for dog aggression in dogs, and their elderly mixed breed dog was killed in their own backyard by loose pit bulls. Exactly how are the supposed to "move on" and why should THEY have to "move on" because somebody else wants to own a dog that puts their dog in danger? Blame the OTHER end of the leash, the irresponsible OWNER that did not responsibly keep their dogs contained. Be responsible or get a goldfish. LEARN the genetic traits AND history of your breed of choice and decide if that is right for you. I would not get a border collie because I don't want to be herded all over the place. I would not get a Chesapeake Bay Retriever because I don't live near water.

• dogcentric I am inviting you to a friendly debate, no personal attacks on my show, The Pit Bull Positive Show to further discuss your beliefs. If you truly believe in what it is you preach and think it is the only option to stop incidents from occurring then you will have no problem coming on. Right?? Please feel free to contact me for further details at danmeagher@pitbullpositive.org I look forward to hearing from you! http://www.ustream.tv/channel/pit-bull-positive-show You can also see what "pit bull" type dogs live like at our home in some of the recorded videos. Beware though this may ruin your image of these aggressive man eaters, due o there subdued nature here. I was lucky enough to find some that are non aggressive!

• Dogcentric: You can "spew" anything out on here that you choose, anyone that fosters, rescues, trains or has breed education knows I'm right. Dog Aggression is very much a trait in MOST dogs and NOT just pit bulls so please spare me the drama of calling me out because in reality, alls you know is what you've read in a book or seen on the news, you clearly have NO breed experience what so ever. Some dogs of any breed may not be able to work thru dog aggression, that is where responsible ownership comes in. And training a young dog (I should have specified her age) to be dog friendly when you have the proper education and tools is no challenge or secret that I have to share-it's something EDUCATED people already know and responsible owners go to training classes to learn. ALL dogs are the products of their owners, the fact that you don't believe that just proves you truly are just here to cause drama. The LIES being spread are those people that claim all pit bulls are dog aggressive. If that is true, then why are there thousands and thousands of people that own them and own other dogs, or take them to dog parks, or training classes with other dogs? If ALL pit bulls are dog aggressive then why is it that I have several along w/ many other rescues and shelters where the dogs play together day in and day out? You know what I think the biggest lie on here is...is that YOU actually have a fricken clue. Poof-be gone! Feel free to call me out anytime buddy-you're nothing but another ignorant piece of gum stuck to the bottom of my breed educated shoe. People like you are just fearful that our cause is making head way and your stereotypes are being proven wrong more and more every day. This will end some day, whatever will you do with your time?

• dogcentric let me ask you this. If ALL "pit bulls" were forced to be spayed and neutered, would that not mean the eventual demise of the breed all together at some point? That doesnt seem to be good for me and Im sure it wouldnt sit well with others. Also this is a problem that has been building for years, you dont just fix it by one person working towards change. Sorry I havent fixed it yet, but Im working on it. Which is more than I can say you are doing. We DONT want BSL it targets only specific breeds and there for is profiling.

• GrandValleyPitCrew, So what do you find unacceptable about the "answer" I have to the pit bull crisis? (Mandatory micrcochipping of all pit bulls and pit bull mixes, mandatory spay/neuter of all pit bulls and pit bull mixes except AKC and UKC-PR registered show dogs). If you are really serious about protecting the rights of disabled people in Denver, AND about putting irresponsible pit bull breeders out of business, shouldn't the pit bull community be lobbying HARD for that legislation and promoting it as a way to avoid the lawsuits you all immediately started threatening? Shouldn't folks like "GrandValleyPitCrew" have been proclaiming your full support for such breed specific legislation and (assuming such legislation were to pass in Denver or statewide) your intention to help authorities enforce it by reporting pit bull breeders not in compliance? Wouldn't that be a win for EVERYBODY, especially the dogs?

• PitBullPositive, If your approach (you know, the "warm, engaging" approach, where you engage in "dialogue and conversation" that doesn't "offend and alienate" irresponsible pit bull breeders) were working, the pit bull crisis would be getting better. The irresponsible breeding problem in other breeds is getting better, and the irresponsible mixed breed problem is far, far better than it has been in the past. But the pit bull crisis continues to get worse. I suspect that is both because your approach doesn't work and because there are far more of them than there are of you. Plus, I certainly apologize, but I have to say that I find it odd that you can't practice what you preach here. Are you really telling us that you are all warm and fuzzy with people who are directly and intentionally hurting pit bulls, but you can't talk to me with the supposed respect you show them? After all, I am not hurting or killing pit bulls. I am just exploring ways to HELP pit bulls and you say you disagree with me. Do you think, for example, third grade namecalling ("dumbcentric") is an example of how you "catch more flies with honey than you do with vinegar?" Note that youe namecalling doesn't bother me, I just find it kind of hilarious that you are lecturing me about how warm and engaging you believe yourself to be.

• What is stinking hilarious about this comments thread is Dogcentric, who seems to have an "answer" for everything. Its pointless to try to reason with such a person because they cannot be reasoned with. They believe they are always right, much like the Denver city council. Good for Denver for standing their ground on this?? You have to be kidding me!! This has become more than just about pit bulls now, its about human rights, the rights of a disabled person. Denver will get their ass handed to them on this one. I don't think they have anything up their sleeve that they believe they can stand on. They are just plain stupid and arrogant. This is about power and control. This is about a few people who think they know what is best even though they have great opposition facing them. There is nothing acceptable about the taxpayer dollars that Denver will have to spend to continue to uphold the ban and fight the lawsuits. When the people of this state are struggling, losing jobs, etc. this behavior is unacceptable! Over the years, numerous animal welfare groups have offered to help Denver write a better ordinance that eliminates breed bans and places the responsibility on owners. They have always refused that help. This will be a big black eye for Colorado. I'm absolutely ashamed of Denver. I'm absolutely ashamed of any resident of Colorado that even remotely thinks anything about this ban and the rejection of the exemption is acceptable!

• Perhaps its your approach when you try to talk to these alleged 'pit bull" breeders you talk to. I certainly dont get the impression you are a very warm engaging person based on your performance here or on any of the other story forums I have butted heads with you on. You are very accusatory and unwilling to hear anything other than things you can use in your defense. I know that in my case I can say I HAVE changed several peoples minds on not only spay and neutering there pets as well as their opinions on APBT's. Ever hear the old saying " You catch more flies with sugar than you do with vinegar."? With a little work you just might be able to make a difference. Its all in the approach, just say that before you try next time.

• There are TONS of irresponsible breeders that aren't APBT breeders....Can you say "puppy mill"? To everyone going back and fourth with "Dogcentric": Unfortuantely, I think you're fighting a battle you can't win with this person. You're either part of the solution or part of the problem. I'm willing to bet "Dogcentric" is part of the problem as they are definitely not helping. Ignorance is bliss...

• PitBullPositive, If I talk to an irresponsible pit bull breeder, I'll tell him not to breed his pit bull, but I know that my efforts are almost certainly going to futile, particularly if he is a very irresponsible breeder. The truth is that, to an overwhelming degree, people who are open to the message about irresponsible dog breeding have already gotten the message. The reason that pit bull breeders still are breeding pit bulls that glut shelters isn't that they never heard of Bob Barker, it is that they heard the message AND THEY DON'T CARE. This is not surprising when one understands that many pit bull owners get pit bulls not as beloved companions but as status symbols or weapons or both.

• PitBullPositive, If you didn't know that irresponsible lab breeders exist, you should try reading what I write more closely. Here is a quote from one of my posts earlier today: "So how do pit bull OFA numbers compare to lab OFA numbers? Once you check that out, if you persist in your claim that pit bulls are at least as popular as labs, then you have to admit that pit bull BREEDERS are WAY less responsible, on average than even lab breeders (and, lord knows, there are plenty of irresponsible lab breeders out there)." Note the last, parenthetical statement. Learn something new every day, don't you?

• Pit bull positive, No, I don't criticize you for "not doing enough." I criticize you for doing ALL THE WRONG THINGS. The vast majority of the pit bull community actively OPPOSES breed specific mandatory spay/neuter of pit bulls and pit bull mixes except AKC and UKC-PR registered show dogs, when that law wouldn't take a single responsibly owned pit bull away from a single responsible pit bull owner and would massively HELP pit bulls. (Who are suffering and dying in horrific numbers). Again, you spend huge amounts of energy trying to improve the IMAGE of pit bulls and ignore the REALITY. In fact, you do worse than ignore it--you OPPOSE the solutions that are out there as the reality gets worse and worse for pit bulls.

• Its better to try and fail than to never try at all. Layin a little wisdom on you dogcentric, let that soak in for a minute. You criticize us for not doing enough and then tell us were wasting our time. Your wisdom or lack there of amazes me.

• Whats this dogcentric an irresponsible Lab breeder??? I didnt know they existed i thought all the irresponsible ones were breeding "pit bulls". Hmm

• BSL in areas prevents people from owning the breed in the future in certain instances. That ultimately affects good owners more so than bad as the bad dont care about breaking the law. That is what I meant dogcentric. The 7 dogs we have here are spayed and neutered and micro chipped and for the most part they all get along. Did they always ? No, but I work with them like Cait pointed out and I also try to not put them in a position where I am setting them up to fail. What are you doing to reach the irresponsible owners dogcentric or do you simply enjoy spending your time arguing with people who are trying to be part of the solution? At the end of the day you have to ask yourself, Did I make a difference today? Well have you dogcentric?

• And, Cait, I think you kind of misunderstood what is going on here. It is the PIT BULL PEOPLE who claim they are going to talk irresponsible pit bull breeders out of breeding pit bulls. Not me. I am all for passing a breed specific LAW to give the state power to force them to stop irresponsibly breeding pit bulls. Like you, I don't think it is very likely that PitBullPositive will be able to "engage a person with no empathy toward animals" to stop breeding pit bulls when pit bull breeding makes him money. Are we clear now? We AGREE on that point.

• Cait, I never said that there aren't dangerous labradors. If you got a dangerous one, maybe you didn't pick a responsible breeder, or maybe you just had really bad luck or maybe you are a really, really bad owner. (Even with a bad owner, a genetical sound labrador should not be a dangerous dog). Sorry about that. Above we had a poster who claims her huaband's border collie has bitten "several" children. It would seem to me that the first bite is (possibly) unexpected. The second? Not so much. I have read "The Pit Bull Placebo." It was one of the most boring, pointless books I ever read, but I plowed through it. It is online. I doubt your local library carries it. Here is what ("Pit Bull Placebo" author) Karen Delise has to say about the intentional breeding of dogs for dangerousness: "One only has to examine the Pit Bull situation in today's society to see an example of how this can and does occur with alarming frequency" Do you agree or disagree with Delise's statement? And if it is so simple to socialize away dog aggression in pit bulls, again, WHY CAN'T BEST FRIENDS MANAGE TO DO IT? Surely they TRIED to teach Tug that killing other dogs is "unwanted behavior," didn't they?

• By the way, Pit Bull Positive, you wrote (addressing me, I think, but you can correct me if I am wrong about that): "Your solution seems to affect bad owners as well as good ones so how is that a solution?" How, exactly does my proposal (mandatory microchipping of all pit bulls and pit bull mixes, mandatory spay/neuter of all pit bulls and pit bull mixes except AKC and UKC-PR registered show dogs) affect "good" pit bull owners at all, except to help them? (Fewer stolen pit bulls, more chance of getting a pit bull back if it is lost since shelters won't be so glutted with pit bulls that they won't even know if they have yours, less guilt about pit bulls dying and you not being able to do anything about it, less chance of waking up to a newspaper headline that might mean you will have to move in order to keep your pit bull, less chance that your insurance will be cancelled or your landlord will be forced by the insurance company to evict you, etc.) Could you please explain that?

• Dogcentric, you are the most ignorant, misguided, and miseducated person I have ever come across. A dog is a dog is a dog. Doesn't matter the breed, all dogs can and do perform the same behaviors. My Labrador Retriever is just as likely to bite you if you provoke him just as any other dog. Another thing: there is no such thing as a "pit bull" - that's a term invented by the media to describe SEVERAL types of dog breeds. And the media is not only irresponsible in its fact collecting, but will refer to any and all dog of questionable origin as a "pit bull" in order to appeal to ignorant people such as yourselves. I fail to see the logic in people saying that a law will magically resolve dog bites. Do you fail to understand that the majority of these incidents are caused by CRIMINALS who own these dogs; and criminals, by nature, BREAK THE LAW. What reason do they have to follow a law banning a specific breed of dog as dangerous? All you've done is made an innocent animal more attractive to a vicious human being. These criminals are attracted to these breeds of dogs because of the sensationalism and hype YOU feed into. You can't "engage" a person with no empathy to stop breeding dogs that they see as a profit making venture any more than you can engage someone to stop doing something to make money, like sell drugs or prostitute themselves. Let's just talk all the drug dealers out of selling drugs and the prostitutes out of selling their bodies, right Dogcentric? That's all we need to do to fix the problem; after all that's what you suggested to do with "pit bull" breeders People will give up dogs for the most asinine of reasons; a study done recently found that of the top ten reasons listed by pet owners for abandoning their pets, only ONE was related to behavior - the rest had to deal with no longer wanting the animal, no longer having room, moving to a different location, and no longer having time for the animal. The point here is that if the state governments feel it's within their authority to ban certain breeds of dog, there's NOTHING TO STOP THEM from doing it to other breeds of dog. It has nothing to do with the breed of dog but rather the fear mongering of ignorant human beings like you. And your dog knowledge is laughable. Not every Border Collie will herd, not every Retriever has what it takes to be a field dog. Not every Shepherd or Malinois put in for police work succeeds. It's not that an American Staffordshire Terrier, American Pit Bull Terrier, Bull Terrier, etc. is as a rule dog aggressive; there are many dogs that get along quite happily with other dogs. A dog is a pack animal first and foremost, regardless of breed. And the dog's desire to be a social being and around others of his kind CAN be utilized to correct his dog aggressive behavior. It's as simple as teaching the dog it's an unwanted behavior. Instead of relying on faulty media reports, why don't you go down to your local library and do some REAL research. I recommend the following books: The Pit-bull Placebo by Karen Delise The Dog's Mind by Dr. Bruce Fogle, DVM The Lost Dogs: The Story of Michael Vick's Dogs and Their Tale of Rescue and Redemption by Jim Gorant Inside of a Dog by Alexander Horowitz The Other End of the Leash: Why We Do What We Do Around Dogs by Patricia McConnell, Ph.

• The long and short of it is Nature vs. Nurture. I own an American Pit Bull Terrier and a Doberman Pinscher - both of which are spectacular dogs. I'm not even going to bother with specific situations we have been in, proving that they are good dogs, etc. Because the opposition on this blog does nothing but spew hate. My dogs have never bit anyone. My husbands childhood dog, a border collie, bit several children. In some situations, I think a dog can be provoked by a child, another animal, or even someone's ignorance. That's what happens when you don't respect any animal; and the fact that they are ANIMALS, regardless of breed or type.

• It is interesting how the "responsible" pit bull community devotes HUGE amounts of effort to denying that pit bulls are what they are. Note, "Sterotype's" post above, which attempts to warn pit bullers to deny the reality of pit bull dog aggression. Among themselves, it may be okay to say "never trust a pit bull not to fight" and if a novice pit bull owner is stupid enough to get a pit bull and try to socialize away the dog aggression the "responsible" pit bull community will come down on him like a ton of bricks if he thereafter whines that his pit bull still ripped up another dog at the dog park. "He's a PIT BULL," the novice will be told, "what do you EXPECT?" And, (although I don't think it is ultimately to the benefit of pit bulls to lie about the problems associated with pit bull ownership), pit bull people have been REMARKABLY successful in terms of getting the media to portray pit bulls in nothing but positive terms. Except for hard news stories about pit bull maulings and attacks, the vast majority of pit bull media attention is positive, about how misunderstood they are and how discriminated against. So pit bull people have changed pit bull image rather remarkably. Unfortunately, they don't have a similar commitment to change pit bull REALITY by actually dealing with the irresponsible breeder problem and the dangerousness problem. And image over substance never really lasts. Ask John Edwards.

• "Lots of Sterotypes," Your abilities to miraculously cure dog aggression in pit bulls could certainly be put to good use at Best Friends. Since you claim to be able to take a dog aggressive pit bull and "socialize" the dog aggression away in "a matter of days" why not let them in on your secret? All those experts can't seem to "socialize" the dog aggression out of Tug, or poor dead Beans. If you would just share your secrets with every other pit bull owner, it would certainly be a lot cheaper than building double fences. Of course, one of the worst things you can do to pit bulls is do what "Lots of Stereotypes" is doing here and spread the complete lie that "it's all in how you raise 'em." This results in people getting pit bulls and being completely unprepared when the dog becomes dangerously dog aggressive. Even worse, are the many stories of pit bull owners who left two "best friend" pit bulls together and came home to a bloodbath and dead dogs. Don't get a border collie and expect it not to herd. Don't get a labrador and expect it not to retrieve. Don't get a pit bull and expect it not to fight other dogs. Do any of you pit bull people dare to break it to "Lots of Stereotypes" that the reason we HAVE dog breeds is the ability to "stereotype" them? And that the UKC APBT standard (i.e. the "stereotype" of the perfect UKC pit bull) admits that most pit bulls are dog aggressive? And that the responsible pit bull owners' mantra is: "Never trust a pit bull not to fight." Right, pit bull people? Do ANY of you care enough about telling the truth and protecting pit bulls from ignorance to set "Lots of Stereotypes" straight?

• First off, no, dog aggression is not "normal" for pit bulls...it's COMMON in MOST dog breeds and with proper socialization starting at a young age is totally workable. I fostered a dog aggressive female and it was a matter of days before she was playing w/ other dogs like that aggression never existed so let's not send a bunk msg about pits saying stuff like that. And pit bull type dogs in the hands of people that LIKE having a dog that is intimidating or viewed as dangerous are typically owned by thugs/gangsters/drug dealers/dog fighters and those are the people we are trying to get thru to for responsible ownership or get the dogs AWAY from-that is NOT the case for all owners so if we could, for the love of god, QUIT classifying every dog and every owner into one stereotypical group THAT would be awesome! 2nd, the only point need be made here people is that THIS IS ILLEGAL AND THEY CAN'T DO THIS BUT ARE BECAUSE NO ONE IS FIGHTING BACK! Excuse me but when did Denver separate from the US and become immune to the constitution? I have a rescue page where hundreds of people have written letters and emails, signed petitions and attended city council meetings but they need more help. You can tell an owner they are not fit to own a dog but you cannot blame the dog for stupid people's actions. A dog will act like a dog-its up to the owner to control the behavior and train a dog in a manner best for it's breed and needs. Haven't we gotten this thru to people yet? 'IT'S NOT THE DOG ITS THE OWNER!'. People use them as status dogs, breed them to fight, abuse them relentlessly, abandon them when they've had enough litters or lost a fight among many other vile acts and then you have back yard breeders who sell them to just anyone... THAT is what needs to be banned...not the dogs. Denver is pushing the bar...are you going to push back?

• I generally don't much care for the show "Pit Boss," but I got sucked into watching one episode a couple of months ago. The premise was that a teenager was being used by an irresponsible pit bull breeder to market the puppies bred, probably to dog fighters. Our hero, Shorty Rossi, was enlisted to approach the dog fighter to try to get the teenager out of the business of selling pit bull puppies to dog fighters. Now, right up front, Shorty admitted that he had no prayer of stopping the pit bull breeder from continuing to breed pit bulls. He had no hope of stopping him from selling the puppies he bred to dog fighters. His entire goal (and this was portrayed as a big victory when it happened) was to get the dog fighter to use SOME OTHER TEENAGER as his middleman. So, even with the Animal Planet cameras and staff trailing behind and with the threat of being shown on national television as a horrible dog breeder who was almost certainly selling to dog fighters, this pit bull 'rescuer' didn't have a hope of changing this breeder's behavior. If there were a LAW in place that required the spay/neuter of all pit bulls except AKC show dogs, that whole scenario would have had a different outcome, wouldn't it? Does anybody here wonder how many litters that pit bull breeder has bred since the taping of the show, and how many pit bulls have suffered and died as a result of that single breeder which even Animal Planet had no hope of shutting down without a law?

• Sorry, PitBullPositive, but I don't know how to engage in "dialogue and conversation" that doesn't "offend and alienate" people who intentionally do things that hurt dogs (and children and old people). If you do, and if you can change the behavior of those people, and if so many pit bull people are so like you and so few are horrible owners and breeders, why are shelters still bursting with unwanted pit bulls? Why haven't you engaged the bad pit bull breeders with dialogue and changed their behavior? Indeed, I don't even see an ATTEMPT from the pit bull community to "engage" the bad pit bull breeders. I keep suggesting to people who think that they can "educate" bad pit bull breeders that a good place to start would be on the "Pit Bull Community" bulletin board. It even has a "breeding" section so you can go right there and find lots and lots of pit bull breeders bragging about breeding pit bulls for dangerousness. Go there and ENGAGE them and report back about how successful you are at convincing them that they shouldn't be breeding their unhealth screened, untitled (unless you count "2xw" after some of their names) pit bulls. Report back on how successful you are at changing their behavior.

• Michele, I am interested that you say that the dog aggression Tug exhibited (i.e. lethal to other dogs) is "normal" for pit bulls. Then you say that if somebody doesn't "like" the traits of pit bulls, "move on." HUH? Are you saying you LIKE dog aggression? My neighbors don't much care for dog aggression in dogs, and their elderly mixed breed dog was killed in their own backyard by loose pit bulls. Exactly how are the supposed to "move on" and why should THEY have to "move on" because somebody else wants to own a dog that puts their dog in danger? I have to say that I would have a whole lot more sympathy for pit bull people (as opposed to their victims--pit bulls--which I am very sympathetic towards) if it didn't seem so clear that so many of them kind of LIKE having a dog that is dangeous to other dogs.

• Sondra, you will never get a response from Colleen. I invited her to come on my show and debate me in a friendly manner and she did not respond to my requests. I also joined her nonsense website and was immediately kicked off for posting some factual information about APBT's. I do find it interesting someone who believes so strongly about something goes to such length's to hide there identity when posting on forums and defending there beliefs.

• Can you verify that the dog in said article is indeed a "pit bull" or are you just taking for granted that the reporter, reported the breed correctly? Was it an APBT,SBT,BT,AST? Or was it simply a "pit bull" type dog, meaning it had short fur, muscular build and blocky head. Studies have been done that conclude that not only does the average citizen have difficulties differentiating the breeds, but professionals as well. To address the question , "What do you responsible owners do about the 250 dogs a days getting killed in Los Angeles County?" Well I know there are THOUSANDS of people on various Social Networks along with emailing that work tireless daily to cross post for those dogs to save them from death. Will we ever make a difference, thats debatable, but none the less we try. Many cities offer free spay and neuter programs that they fund from donations, there are q number of organizations who work to educate the public on the breed, there are writers dedicated to sharing some of the good stories about the breeds listed as "pit bulls." So to say we dont care and we do nothing is ludacris, you "Haters" constantly try to paint us all with a broad stroke, well its simply not true we come from all walks of life and we all have our own stories.

• I am so glad that I chose to move to Oregon 15 years ago instead of Denver. There must be something in the water that makes people ignorant. And for Colleen Lynn, you are the worst of the worst. Your website is inaccurate and basically propaganda that is intended to financially advance yourself and your attorney friends. I have emailed you multiple times with verified facts that show what you distribute is factually inaccurate. Not only do you not correct yourself, you don't even engage in an argument. You don't care about the truth, just your personal agenda.

• Anonymous: To correct you, I answered the question a few times. MSN for all breeds, not only the pit bulls. And offered the stats from the ASPCA estimating a total count between 3-4 million dogs a year, of which, pits are a part. This is a general issue and cannot be attributed to pits only. Nor can you place blame on the pit owners only. This should be part of a legislation package that covers aggressive animals, licensing, people training etc... which has been proven to reduce the incidents of dog bite. Simply look at Denver's southern neighbor, Englewood. They are experiencing a situation completely converse to Denver with legislationthat is also completely converse to Denver's. I care a great deal for the breed. Went as far as to rescue a fight dog. have convinced a few people to neuter their pets, including my brother. I speak out whenever there is opportunity to discuss.

• Wait, after bringing a pit bull into a ban area so that it can get killed, a lawsuit shows you care? about the dog? No, you don't care about the dog and knowingly put its life in jeopardy to either fulfill your selfish whims or make a point by getting a dog killed. a lawsuit doesn't show you care. Here is a search for an extremely serious pit bull attack in Bush IL this year. The results show 4 local news outlets covered it with just 2 stories repeated in the first 2 pages of results. How ever many pit bull attacks there are that get big coverage, it seems there are still more that get almost none. http://www.google.com/search?aq=f&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=bush+il+pit+bull+attack I believe Colleen Lynn is for the Denver pit bull ban, and Dogcentric is not.

• My bad that story was in a San Fran newspaper.

• Michael here is an article by a Denver writer who did her research on the media bias towards dogs deemed "pit bulls". http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/pets/detail?entry_id=70485&gta=commentform&plckItemsPerPage=10&plckSort=TimeStampAscending&plckFindCommentKey=CommentKey:28879eda-9827-46a1-9558-f5b7814f5017#commentform Also I see some of Colleen's supporters are making there way over here to spout more hate. Anonymously of course as they always do. Claiming all owners of seized and murdered dogs in Denver did not care. Why are there lawsuits then?

• This is a fascinating conversation, everyone. Pit Bull Positive, we're going to make your take on newspaper coverage an upcoming Comment of the Day. Congrats, and thanks for reading.

• denver sucks, so do the people there, that is where columbine came from

• Dear Colleen "dogcentric" Lynn, Please get a life and a job, we are worried about your health. I know the weather gets cold way up there on your delusional pedestal. Austin Texas also called, they would like you out. As a matter of fact, all of us would like you out of the state. You like to tell me people how to live there lives so perhaps North Korea is the spot for you? Good luck on your travels and tell Kim Jong Il hello. Thank You, Society

• This is fascinating. Dogcentric doesn't want to take one single pit bull away from one single responsible owner and, as far as I can tell, sides with the pit bull owners on pit bull bans and asks 2 questions of people who supposedly love pit bulls - Do you want to stop so many pit bulls from being killed and if so, what is your solution? Not one SINGLE pit bull "lover" has offered one single solution. Amazing. You really DO NOT CARE about the dogs. And to reiterate what's been said before - those pictures of the supposed denver breed ban dead pits - each pit bull there represents a pit bull owner THAT DID NOT CARE about the dog.

• Education and dialogue that doesnt offend and alienate seems to be a good starting point to me, but Im sure that wont sit well with you. I did not make the comment about my brother, try to keep up with who said what please. I know it must be hard being that you are the minority and not the majority in this discussion. I dont pretend to have all the answers unlike you, but I am trying to work with others to find solutions, not simply saying there is a problem. Your solution seems to affect bad owners as well as good ones so how is that a solution? Debating someone with second hand knowledge on a topic instead of first hand experience for years is pointless.

• dogcentric: I am sticking by what I said. The Vick dogs have made outstanding progress. Tug was not "desperate" to kill another dog. Tug is dog aggressive, a normal trait with this breed. I believe that a well bred american pit bull terrier is not for everyone. They are a breed that need a very well educated person, one that understands the history and accepts it for what it is. Every breed has certain traits. If you don't like the traits, move on to another breed. And go read up on german shepards, husky's and malumutes. They can break through alot of fences too, because of their extremely "high" prey drive. It's up to the human to know the breed they have, know what they are capable of, and act accordingly and responsibly.

• Now, PitBullPositive, I am still waiting to hear your response to MY question: What do you propose to do to change the behavior of the pit bull breeders who are currently glutting shelters with pit bulls who have led short, desperate, brutal lives. I know that you tell us that you persuaded your brother not to breed his pit bull, (and congratulations for that) but I am guessing that your brother actually cares about dogs, right? So how do you persuade the mass of pit bull breeders who DON'T CARE about the suffering they cause (remember, many of these people are attracted to pit bull ownership precisely because they WANT a dog that is violent to, and causes suffering to, other dogs)? Please be specific.

• We argue because our argument is based on fact not fiction. If there is an attack by a dog labeled a 'pit bull" chances are it will make roughly 15 to 20 different newspaper outlets on the web, where as a dog not fitting in to what is considered a "pit bull" type dog maybe 1 or sometimes none. Can you argue this is not true, I mean you troll the internet looking for negative stories, right. I know this because i consistently see your screen name on comment forums spewing your hate for the breed. I know you like to believe BSL and mandatory spay and neuter are the answer, but in this case you are wrong. Isnt MSN a way to eventually exterminate this breed? I see you still dont want to answer the question about your personal experience with 'pit bulls" so your opinions really hold no weight here. Your grasping at straws...

• I know and have known lots of pit bulls personally. I've like a lot of them quite a bit. I have never owned a pit bull (and never will) because I know enough about dogs to know that I don't WANT to own a pit bull. This isn't really strange, there are lots of breeds I wouldn't ever want to own for lots of different reasons. With pit bulls, it is the heightened potential for lethal degrees of dog aggression that is the biggest deal breaker for me, although I like some other things about some pit bulls. I also have done my homework about pit bulls and looked at the facts. Interestingly, I came to some of my conclusions sort of reluctanty, becasue I was involved in discussions with some "wolfdog" breeders about "wolfdog" dangerousness and the ethics of breeding them (we won't go there--but suffice it to say I am against it). When I looked at the facts, I realized that pit bulls were killing far more people than were "wolfdogs," and were even, arguably more dangerous on a per capita basis. Plus pit bulls are glutting shelters and suffering and dying at a rate that wolfdogs have never matched. So I got interested in researching this canine issue as well.

• Michele, Do you not believe that pit bulls, bred for over a century (and often still bred today) by people who value the trait of a dog willing to race across a pit, attack another dog with no provocation whatsoever and keep up the attack until the other dog is dead, are AFFECTED by the breeding decisions made by the "oldtime dogmen" (and current breeders) who bred for those traits? Have you ever met a border collie that, with no training whatsoever, tried to herd the kids or other dogs? Why is that? How is it that border collies are so affected by what people breed them to do, but pit bull people claim pit bulls aren't? And, hey, I agree with you. If it takes double fencing and absolute isolation from other dogs to keep Tug from killing other dogs (and it apparently takes at least that), Best Friends should do that. But don't bill the Vick pit bulls as being "rehabilitated" and living as "pets and therapy dogs" when, even after years of full time professional work, some of them are still so desperate to kill other dogs that they break through three fences to do it.

• Im still waiting for a response to my questions dogcentric. What do you base your knowledge of "pit bulls" on? Im guessing mostly its based on what you read and not what you have experienced personally.

• Well, actually, we DO see more than 16 pit bull related deaths this year, PitBullPositive. And the year isn't yet over (another guy died this week, apparently of injuries suffered in a pit bull attack in October). Are dog related deaths fairly rare occurrances? Yes. They are extreme dog behavior. They are each tragedies in their own right, of course, but are also good barometers of which dogs are exhibiting extreme dangerousness short of fatal attacks. Pit bull people always whine that any attack by a pit bull is overblown by "the media" so it is kind of useless to talk about non-fatal pit bull maulings. Pit bull people will ALWAYS counter that their counsin's step-mom's fiance was mauled to within an inch of his life by a labrador and nobody covered THAT in the media. But dead is dead and there really isn't any disagreement that a dead person was seriously mauled. So, unless you can think of a reason why pit bulls kill far more people but tend don't seriously maul them (short of death) you kind of stuck with the fact that pit bulls are WAY ahead of the pack in terms of seriously dangerous behavior. Next question: What to do about that fact? Some cities, including Denver, have chosen to just ban pit bulls entirely. My solution is mandatory spay/neuter of all pit bulls and pit bull mixes except AKC and UKC-PR registered show dogs. Despite the fact that this solution lets EVERY responsible pit bull owner keep his/her pit bull, and helps pit bulls, note the amount of pit bull community vitriol that gets spewed in my direction. Do you folks not CARE that thousands of pit bulls die every week? This combination of being owned by folks who tend to be both irrational and disagreeable (this is the people I am talking about, not the dogs) is a big part of why pit bulls are circling the drain so many places.

• dogcentric: yes, I read the story. The American Pit Bull Terrier can be a dog aggressive breed. I would think you should know that already. From what I read, the fenced in enclosure was not secure enough and Tugs got out. Best Friends does amazing work but with all due respect, they needed to make sure those enclosures were safe enough. A sentence from the article I read: "A dog had to die and the issue made public for double fencing to go up" And I will stand by what I said...those dogs HAVE MADE amazing progress. Dog aggression is a NORMAL GENETIC trait. Go spin it somewhere else...

• Michele, Speaking of the Vick dogs, have you HEARD about Tug vs. Beans? Was that an example of the "amazing progress" Tug has made as a "pet or therapy dog?" Maybe Tug found the encounter to be "therapeutic," but I doubt Beans did. But Tugs "Vicktory" over Beans does give an ironic twist to that term, doesn't it?

• EmilyS. While I am sure that Denver is grateful for your free legal advice, (and your concern and desire to help Denver is mighty touching), I am betting they are getting their actual legal advice from people who (unlike you, apparently) know the difference between a law and a regulation. Plus, I'll bet their attorneys are telling them that federal laws sometimes "take precedence" over a state's laws, and sometimes don't. What will be kind of interesting to see is how many actual plaintiffs the pit bull people will be able to muster up. After all, while a typical "service dog" user doesn't have much to worry about in regard to anybody questioning the legitimacy of his/her disability or the legitimacy of the dog's training to do specific tasks to ameliorate that disability, these facts may be very closely scrutinized and subject to discovery in the case of people suing the city. Maybe one of the reasons the City decided to go forward was an analysis that there really aren't likely to be very many truly disabled people with pit bulls that truly meet the definition of "service dog." It will be a fun case to watch as it plays out.

• I do not own an american pit bull terrier. But I will tell you that I will fight BSL until there is no more BSL against this magnificant breed. There was a time when dobermanns were in the spotlight, then rottweilers, now it's the american pit bull terrier. As far as the Vick dogs go, they were brutalized, tortured, abused and the ones that were rescued have made amazing progress as pets or therapy dogs. That just goes to show you that this breed can endure and STILL be what they are supposed to be....loving, loyal and unconditional in everything they give to us.

• dumbcentric if "pit bulls" were disproportionately owned by irresponsible people wouldnt we see more than just 16 deaths a year??? Seems to me based on numbers your argument has no leg to stand on lol. If they are so unpredictable Im certain we would see more, right? Also like pointed out several countries have repealed BSL, why BECAUSE IT DOESNT WORK! Do some research, dont just read the headlines geez. Let me ask you this. What is your knowledge of the breed based on??? Have you lived with an American Pit Bull Terrier/ Most of the people commenting on this story have years of experience living with the breed, so for people to listen to some one who is basing their opinions off of hear say and what they read is ridiculous at best.

• Great commentary on this blog. http://btoellner.typepad.com/kcdogblog/2010/12/denver-attny-projecting-who-might-sue-us-is-something-with-some-sensitivity-around-it.html Dogcentric: Nature vs Nurture is the crux. Ask a social worker about nature vs nurture. Conditions under which the dog is raised is key. Breed Specific Legislation does not work. How can you sensibly not support unbiased legislation (which will still address your concerns but include many others) combined with education?

• Dear Denver City Council: you need a basic civics lesson. "Home rule" is a provision in your STATE constitution that gives localities the right to pass their own laws, even in contradiction to STATE laws. It has no relation to FEDERAL laws, which take precedence. Remember that thing called "the Civil War"? This was pretty much settled back then. Now if you want to try to do an Orval Faubus and call out the National Guard to keep blacks from attending school... well you'll probably be remembered in history as he is. Meanwhile, stop listening to your obsessed minor city attorney Kory Nelson, who is leading you down a very expensive pathway to humiliation and fines. The law and precedents are crystal clear. You may continue to ban pit bulls (which is a matter for local animal control ordinances) but you may NOT prevent a disabled person from having the service dog of his choice, because that is a civil rights issue.

• Mel, The reason tht the breed of dog that attacked the "French Lady" is "hardly" (although everybody I talk to knows it was a lab, so it has been mentioned enough) mentioned is that this attack happened in France, a long time ago, and the attack itself was not the story that got media attention in the US. The story was the unique medical procedure (face transplant). How many FATAL pit bull attacks on humans in the US have occurred this year alone? If the media supposedly covers each one so aggressively, you should know the answer to this, right? In truth, the amount of media attention a particular dog attack gets is dependent on many factors, including the attractiveness of the victim and the uniqueness of the breed involved. Many fatal pit bull attacks don't generate much of anything beyond a few local yawning media mentions and a standard "Pit Bull Kills Toddler" headline.

• Re your contention that every AKC breed has killed at least one person, that is not true. You specifically claim a yorkie killed somebody. When and where did that happen? When and where has a flat coated retriever killed somebody? An Irish water spaniel? A Clumber spaniel? A beagle? A standard poodle? A cavalier King Charles Spaniel? A gordon setter? A borzoi? An Irish wolfhound. Indeed, there are probably more breeds that haven't killed people than have. Your contention that it is all about "body mass" is flat wrong. Newfoundlands don't kill people with any degree of regularity at all. Pit bulls do kill people with regularity--they've killed more than half the 30 people killed by dogs in this country so far this year. Do you admit that pit bulls are typically more DOG AGGRESSIVE than, say, labradors? If not, why does the UKC American Pit bull Terrier standard specifically say this is true? Why do all pit bull experts admit that this is true?

• Actually, I'll try to respond to your long post in segments. I don't have time to respond completely this morning, but I'll try to get back to it later. You are right that nobody knows how many pit bulls there are. What we do know is a pretty good estimate of how many pit bulls there are with even the tiniest claim of being responsibly bred. We know that from OFA numbers, since every responsible pit bull breeder (just like every responsible lab breeder) OFAs hips (they do other stuff, too, but OFA hips are minimal) before breeding. So how do pit bull OFA numbers compare to lab OFA numbers? Once you check that out, if you persist in your claim that pit bulls are at least as popular as labs, then you have to admit that pit bull BREEDERS are WAY less responsible, on average than even lab breeders (and, lord knows, there are plenty of irresponsible lab breeders out there). Right? So does having a huge proportion of grossly irresponsible breeders have an EFFECT on a breed, do you think? Or are pit bulls somehow, magically, immune from the effects of irresponsible breeding? If it is the latter, please explain how that works. So either pit bulls are

• IOARPB, TWICE you specifically said that ENGLAND has repealed its ban on pit bulls. You wanted me to reply to that piece of information. (I ignored it the first time you said it, since I figured I would let one of the pit bull people here gently correct you, but of course that didn't happen...probably some of them will be repeating your lie somewhere else on the internet). Now you say that you "consider" Scotland and England to be "the same." England hasn't repealed its ban. It is still in place. And (I hate to break it to you) but England and Scotland are not "the same."

• 1) It is unreasonable to assume that AKC will have ANY pit bull related statistics for a number of reasons. First, there is no such breed as "Pit Bull". It isn't even a group. The American Pit Bull Terrier (APBT) is registered by the UKC and, as the name implies, is a member of the Terrier group. On a side note, the American Pit Bull Terrier is not the largest breed in the Terrier group. That honor goes to the Airdale. The AKC registers the American Staffordshire Terrier (AmStaff) which, while similar to the American Pit Bull Terrier, is NOT the same thing. Yes, the UKC will accept the registration of an AKC AmStaff as a UKC APBT. This owes the the common ancestry of the two breeds. 2) Nobody actually knows how many APBTs there are in the country. UKC does not publish registration statistics and AKC does not register the APBT at all. There are other registries, but most don't publish registration numbers and those that do are not generally regarded as being particularly trustworthy. You could look at euthanasia and adoption rates from shelters, but that wouldn't tell us much. We'd be relying on a visual identification which, as has been noted previously, isn't a particularly accurate method of breed identification. If an APBT/Lab mix comes in, is it a pit bull or a labrador? If they DO call it a mix, is it a Pit Bull mix or a Labrador mix? There's just no way to know. Besides, there are plenty of pit bulls that end up in shelters because somebody figures out what they have and, responding to media and public hype, the manage to freak themselves out and turn it over to the local shelter. That fact would tend to skew any estimates of population levels. So claiming that the "Pit Bull is the most numberous breed" is simply fallacious. There's just no way to know. That said, I feel it is likely a fair assumption. In the end, though, that's all it is. 3) How many dog-related fatalities have occurred in the past year? I've seen the question asked a couple of times, "How many people have pit bulls killed in the past year". Good question. The most recent set of reliable nationwide statistics that I know of were published by the CDC in 1996 from data compiled between 1979 and 1994. Hardly current, but its what is available and it doesn't address the question. 4) No, the average fila brasileiro is no more inherently dangerous than the average golden retriever, assuming that both breed representatives are in the same weight class. Note that the key word there is "Inherently". All canids have the capacity for violence. If you sit down with the CDC statistics and the AKC registry book, you'll find that EVERY breed in the book has at least 1 human fatality (obviously ignoring breeds that began registration AFTER 1994). Yes, that even includes the tiny yorky (I assume that one was an infant). Relative dangerousness among dog breeds comes down to body mass, as it does in the animal kingdom in general. The larger an animal is, the more dangerous it can be regarded owing to its increased ability to inflict damage. A feral shorthair cat can hurt you. A lynx can kill you. The only REAL difference is size and weight. 5) The ATTS test is not meant to gage "dangerousness". It is meant to measure a dog's reaction to various stimuli as compared to a accepted standard of appropriateness. In short, it is meant to determine whether or not a dog responds appropriately to a given stimulus. The test itself has nothing to do with a dog's "boldness". It merely looks at the appropriateness of the dog's reactions. Thus, you will find dogs passing the ATTS test that strain at the leash during the "threatening stranger" segment. You will also find dogs passing that same segment who simply stand there nonchalantly as the "stranger" approaches. You will even find two member of the same breed passing that test with RADICALLY different responses. This is because a response is considered "appropriate" if it is in measure with the stimulus and stops when the stimulus stops. A dog that goes hunting for the stranger after the stimulus stops is not likely to pass that segment. Thus, the ATTS is more about the canine decision making process than anything else. As of June 12 of this year, the APBT has passed the ATTS test 86% of the time. The Golden Retriever passed 84.6% of the time. For reference, of all dogs tested, 82.4% passed. The statistics published by ATTS give us a standard deviation of .16, so the difference of 2.2% is statistically significant. 6) In the end, claiming that "all pit bulls are..." is EXACTLY the same logic as "all blacks are...", "all jews are...", "all fords are...". There are very few absolutes in the world and speaking in terms of absolutes where none exists just makes the speaker look like an idiot. As a rule, anyway. What really needs to happen is people need to wake up to the way that the world actually works. If you're afraid of pit bulls, man up and take some responsibility for your own safety. Don't act stupid around them. And, just in case of a situation where one might sneak up on you, be prepared. Exercise your right to be an armed citizen. Don't expect the government, or anyone else for that matter, to be responsible for you. If you're a pit bull advocate, man up and take some responsibility for yourselves and those you purport to represent. If you're going to make assertions, back them up with facts, not assumptions. Assumptions are the domain of the media and its fear mongering sycophants.

• @dogcentric, To quote you "So the well behaved golden retriever whose owner wants to play frisbee with it in the park ends up paying the price because pit bull people don't want to be held accountable for the gross irresponsibility that has gotten pit bulls into the mess they are in." Have you ever been attacked by a retriever? I have when I was younger and have the scars all over my body to prove it. It wasn't as you put it some well behaved retriever who attacked me it was a vicious dog that an irresponsible dog owner couldn't handle. Its nurture not nature. And another thing, the story never made the press because it wasn't pit bull or pit bull type looking dog. If it had been I guarantee it would have been all over the papers. Take the french lady Isabelle Dinoir whose face was bitten off by her labrador. The press ran stories of her reconstructive surgery and the fact her own family labrador attack her was hardly mentioned. I'll say again, its nurture not nature.

• Dogcentric, Regarding the Vick-tory dogs: How dare you trivialize the extreme abuse and neglect inflicted upon those animals. Your statement should read (right, right, huh? huh?) All the animals were tortured, abused and neglected at the hands of Michael Vick. Some were SO TRAUMATIZED that they will never be able to exist outside of a location designed to handle traumatized dogs. Those are the ones that were not drowned or choked to death at his own hands, that is. For the sole purpose of profit and sport. He invested Unknown dollars into building a compound designed specifically for profiteering on the blood of those animals.

• I should be more specific, they live in Scotland. UK/England, I still consider it the same.

• Wrong again. It is repealed. (i used to live there) I have friends there that own them currently. Rots too. BREED DOES NOT MATTER- all dogs hold potential. Conditions under which they are raised matters.

• Dogcentric, Shameful. Just shameful, how you are trying to deliver your msg. I wonder if you behave this way in person. because you sling a lot of shit and insults. Too bad. To address further your shelter remarks. Ask the AKC. They admit, even they cannot count the number of Pits in the USA. It is by far the largest breed in the country. The even (guess)estimate there are twice as many pit as the next most popular breed. I campaign for spaying and neutering ALL dogs. Even convinced my brother not to breed his pit. You need to support unilateral legislation.

• Again, IOARPB, when you say that "breed does not matter," do you seriously contend that the typical fila brasileiro is no more dangerous than the typical golden retriever? Note that this does not require you to tell us about all the mean labrador retrievers you know. It is a yes or no question.

• IOARPB, Who told you that England repealed their pit bull ban? They didn't. It is still in place. Some factions talk about repeal, of course, but then some pit bull kills some british child and the chances for repeal kind of go down the toilet. Dog mauling deaths seem to get way more media attention over there than in the US, by the way.

• Dogcentric: Breed does not matter. All dogs hold potential. I have worked with 5 trainers. With my pit bull, my rottie mix, their pit bulls, shepards etc... I have separated 5 dogs from mine over the past three years. NONE of which was a pit. 4 of the 5 were uncastrated, young males. The 5th was a Great Pyrenees female. All 5 owners were dog ignorant. These are the dangerous people and animals. I live what you discuss, daily. I know first hand what you spew. I have been bitten by a chihuahua and attacked by a Great Dane, only to have my Rottie step in and drive it away. BREED DOES NOT MATTER.

• Charlie B. Godwin's Law! (You lose).

• Actually, there aren't 4 million dogs killed in this country every year. Yes, there are far too many, but not 4 million. And virtually everywhere, there is a breed specific problem with pit bull overpopulation. For example, in New York City shelters, 80% of the dogs killed are pit bulls. There are places in this country where the ONLY adoptable dogs killed are pit bulls and pit bull mixes. But since you say that "it isn't a pit bull problem," I am sure that you are lobbying hard AGAINST the many breed specific programs that offer free spay/neuter to pit bulls (only), Right? Indeed, there are even places where scarce animal welfare resources are used to PAY pit bull owners if they will only agree to spay/neuter their dogs, right? Can you cite us to any program to pay owners of other breeds to spay/neuter? Why do pit bull owners have to be bribed on a breed specific basis? And, of course, you are outraged at any program that does this, right? Because "it isn't a pit bull problem." Right?

• Dogcentric, Your arguments are fool hardy. You have not addressed the fact that ENGLAND repealed their 20 yr ban on the breed because it DOESN"T work. That covers your whole statment to PBP about crackhouses and drug dealers. How do you account for the fact that Englewood's rate of dog bites is 25% of Denver's? because they have educational programs and can enforce against ANY dog regardless of BREEED. You need to start supporting aggressive dog laws which will address any offending pit bulls, as well as Labradors that attack. Fundamentally, Breed Bans do not work.

• Sorry, IOARPB, but anybody who says that "breed does not matter" in terms of dog dangerousness doesn't know a thing about dogs. EVERY dog trainer understands that breed matters when it comes to dog dangerousness. Are you really, seriously contending that fila brasileiros are no more dangerous than are golden retrievers?

• To address your comments about unwanted pit bulls is to address the almost 4 million overall dogs killed every year. Of which, pit bulls are a part. I personally discuss it on the streets, with people intent on breeding their pure breds. I have brought them to the shelter to see the end result of breeding. I even convinced my brother form the same simple mistake. It is not a pit bull problem, don't make it into one. You fabricate enough.

• PitBullPositive, Go to the "Pit Bull Community" bulletin board. Note the scores of pit bull breeders posting there (and this isn't even an overt dog fighting board) bragging about breeding pit bulls with no health screens whose only reason for being bred is because they are related to pit bulls whose only claim to fame is their ability to rip other dogs to pieces. Feel free to "reach" these breeders and tell them about how they are hurting pit bulls. Report back to us about how many of them you have convinced to forego breeding pit bulls for dangerousness. Sorry, but here is a hint: People who breed pit bulls in order to have dogs who kill other dogs or to kill people (i.e. guard crackhouses) really don't CARE if you think that they aren't responsible or if you think they are hurting dogs. In fact, many of the pit bull breeders who breed for money don't care about these things. If they did, irresponsibly bred pit bull numbers would be declining in this country instead of rising. So that kind of leaves laws as a way to solve the problem, doesn't it? If people aren't amenable to education, and are going to continue to take actions that hurt powerless beings just because they want to, isn't it appropriate to pass laws to protect the powerless?

• Dogcentric: www.denverkillsdogs,com First of all, I hope that anyone reading this has the sense to see you for what you are, the abuse you are leveling here onto the dogs and fellow posters. You showing your true colors. PBP's statement was made to highlight the fact that they are merely dogs. Everyone owns them. They behave no different than other dogs. They can be seen on TV, behaving, well, like dogs. Irresponsible? Do you not see the irony of yourself? You are on a public forum, insulting people, using fear tactics, bullying, mis-stating facts and making sweeping, prejudiced generalizations about people you do not know. Irresponsiblilty: In the midst of a media which is finally coming out and admitting they deliberately label dogs as pit bulls for profit. That's irresponsible. Even the Denver Post admits it. Irresponsibility: The city and county of Denver absconding with family pets and murdering them. Have you not heard of the massive lawsuit against Denver by it's residents. The facts of their cases are horrifying. Denver police have storm troopered into houses and taken whatever dog they found. Neighbors call in any dog that barks at them, then denver has not only picked them up, but murdered them!! Denver has turned into an actual Nazi state regarding dogs. Dog at the end of leash...People killed... Just stop the fear mongering... ALL dogs hold potential, you simpleton. All dogs attack. Breed does not matter.

• There was a time in history where millions of people were rounded up, held in captivity, and eventually killed because they looked a certain way. It was decreed that they were an inferior race and a danger to purity. Whether you were of that race or looked like them, you wuere marked for death. Denver is in essence doing this to man's best friend. Even though there are plenty of reported golden retriever attacks, there are no cities talking of banning them. Some responsible pit bull owners actually obey local ordinances involving their pets, keep their shot records and pets trained and friendly toward human and animal alike. BSL legislation doesn't treat the dog fairly. A pit bull can be attacked on it's leash and be condemned to death for merely being involved in the scuffle. It's happened before. And because of closed-minded lawmakers, it will again. Sad but true.

• PitBullPOsitive, WHAT "consistently negative portrayals of the breed by the media?" I don't know what planet you are on, but here on Earth, we have not one but TWO hour long shows every week (Pit Bulls and Parolees and Pit Boss) devoted to promoting pit bulls. what other breed has that? And Animal Planet recently promoted Pit Bulls and Parolees by offering to donate $50,000 to Tia Torres if enough people watched the show, right? Did they do that for any other breed's rescue? Is Animal Planet not "the media?" Then we have Cesar Milan who never misses a chance to promote pit bulls. When his pit bull "Daddy" died, it got more media coverage than most fatal attacks by pit bulls on people. Of course, when he wanted to find a new pit bull, he didn't go to the shelter to adopt one. He CAREFULLY chose a responsibly bred pit bull from show lines and made sure he got the mellowest puppy in the litter. We also had "Dogtown" on television and many specials about the Vick pit bulls. Plus there were Sports Illustrated and Parade magazine cover stories about the Vick pit bulls which were all about how "rehabilitated" the dogs were, and didn't really let people know that some of the Vick dogs, even with years of professional training, are still quite dangerous. We even get media attention for non-events such as "National Pit Bull Awareness Day" and plenty of publicity for free, breed specific spay/neuter of pit bulls, and breed specific pit bull only adoption days. Yes, if a pit bull kills a toddler, it does get some play in the media. But that is because (unlike "National Pit bull Awareness Day") that is NEWS. The media is kind of supposed to cover the news.

• And to all you supposed pit bull lovers who refuse to come up with a meaningful plan to address the FACT that thousands and thousands of unwanted pit bulls die each week in this country because of pit bull breeder irresponsibility, how does that equate to "loving" pit bulls? In fact, most (all?) of you OPPOSE breed specific mandatory spay/neuter of pit bulls (except AKC and UKC-PR registered show dogs) despite the fact that you offer NO OTHER PLAN to deal with horrific amounts of pit bull overpopulation. Right? Forgive me, but if I were a pit bull, I think I would pass on your version of "love." It seems to be rather lethal.

TotalComments: 100