[szky]

Just posted my reply to her. Both directly and to the Letters e-mail. Boy, she got me going. My reply was a little lengthy and I still left some points off. Here it is:

In response to your Op/Ed “With Best friends like these…” you seriously misstate and leave out a number facts contained in the very reports you cite as “let’s look at the facts.”

The CDC report states the numerator data maybe biased for four reasons, one of which is “to the extent that attacks by one breed are more newsworthy than those of other breeds, the (CDC’s)methods may have resulted in a differential ascertainment of fatalities by breed.” You accurately state that the author’s conclusion about Pit Bulls and Rottweilers accounted for 60% of the dogs where those breeds were involved in 67% of the dog bite fatalities. You left out the authors other conclusions which were:

1) It is imperative to keep in mind that even if Breed Specific bite rates could be accurately calculated, they do not factor in ownership related issues.
2) BSL does not address the fact that a dog of a certain breed can become dangerous when bred or trained. From a scientific point of view we are unaware of any formal evaluation of the effectiveness of BSL in preventing fatal or non-fatal dog bites.
3) Generic non breed specific dangerous dog laws can be enacted that place the primary responsibly for the dog’s behavior on the owner, regardless of breed. In particular, targeting irresponsible dog owners may be effective.
4) Enforcement of existing animal control laws and educational and policy strategies to reduce inappropriate dog and OWNER behaviors will likely result in benefits to the community.
5) Fatal attacks on humans are a small proportion of dog bite injuries and should not be the primary factor driving public policy concerning dangerous dogs. Many practical alternatives exist to breed specific laws.

Your diatribe goes to great lengths to single out Rottweilers (and Pit Bulls) with mind numbing statistics. Other important fact you leave out is that 75% of the reported fatal dog bites in the 20 year study involved dogs occurred on the owner’s property. Perhaps, education about respecting people property rights is in order.

You “would like to see potentially dangerous breeds better controlled.” The current laws are adequate for “controlling dangerous DOGS that have been identified.” Your gratuitous reference to “PC nicety” is the height of hypocrisy considering that the L.A. Times and the Bay Area where Jackie Spiers is from go completely beyond common sense when dealing with “Political Correctness” in today’s society.

You go further to state what other countries do. Who cares!!!!! Go live in France, Germany and Belgium. We are in the United States. European countries deal with a myriad of issues facing us is contrary how we handle issues. You don’t like it here, leave. Go work for the San Francisco Chronicle.

Using PETA as a reference in this debate is like using Al-Qaeda as an example of a moderate, sensible religious group. PETA uses questionable acts to further their agenda. Their opinion on BSL carries no credibility.

What happened to your Newfoundland was unfortunate. Further, I’ve owned three Rottweilers (I only have one now) and when we go on our walks, we are menaced by a Golden Retriever, Jack Russell and Dalmatian. All of which are unleashed and running off of their properties. Ban those breeds? Or, enforce existing laws against the irresponsible owners.

Owning any dog carries tremendous responsibilities. Proper training, socialization and breeding are all equally important factors. Most tragedies can be prevented with proper supervision by responsible adults. Existing laws for dealing with identified dangerous dogs are already in force and when used, adequate to serve the community.