Editorial in LA Times calling for BSL!!!

[rottie597]

This lady needs some letters...see address below:


California is moving on to next breed in the media! Please crosspost to all Rottie folks!
With best friends like these ...
By Samantha Bonar, Samantha Bonar is a Times staff writer.

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/...day-commentary

ROTTWEILERS should be profiled. Same goes for pit bulls. It has nothing to do with the color of their fur and everything to do with the content of their character. These dog breeds should be regulated because they are powerful, unpredictable and dangerous.

I used to argue that there are no bad dogs, only bad owners. I defended such breeds as Rottweilers and pit bulls as unfairly maligned.

I changed my mind last year after a Rottweiler attacked my gentle 10-year-old Newfoundland mix while we were hiking in the mountains. Whether by nature or lack of nurture, this was a rotten dog. The unprovoked attack has left my pet with nerve damage to his throat. His vet bills have cost me almost $4,000 so far. The saddest part is that he has had to give up hiking, an activity that never failed to make his day.

The Rottweiler's owners told me that they had adopted the then-2-year-old dog from the Pasadena Humane Society about a year before and that this was her second attack. A spokesperson for that organization assured me that the group takes every precaution to make sure the animals it places are not dangerous. The problem is, Rottweilers are large, muscular dogs with extremely strong jaws. Males range from 95 to 135 pounds, females from 80 to 100 pounds, according to the American Rottweiler Club.

Even when owners don't abuse these dogs, this breed, which traces its ancestry to Roman dogs of war, can be violent and unpredictable, as evidenced by last summer's fatal attack on a 16-month-old in Glendale by her grandparents' pet Rottweiler. One neighbor described that dog as "a goofy, gentle giant" — that, oh by the way, had killed a small dog in the neighborhood a year earlier.

I'm sure there are many nice Rottweilers. I've read "Good Dog, Carl." But I would like to see potentially dangerous breeds better controlled. Legislation by state Sen. Jackie Speier (D-Hillsborough) to restrict breeding of specific breeds is a good first step. SB 861, which the governor signed into law in October, gives local governments authority to require the spaying and neutering of specific breeds. (San Francisco almost immediately passed a measure that requires the spaying and neutering of pit bulls.) Ordinances are not allowed, however, to deem any specific dog breed potentially dangerous or vicious. This is a silly PC nicety.

Common-sense, breed-specific legislation would include requiring the muzzling of certain breeds in public, forbidding certain people (i.e. criminals) from owning certain breeds, banning certain breeds from certain places (dog parks, beaches, nature preserves) and increasing criminal penalties and civil damages if a dog of a particular breed injures a person. Let's look at the facts:

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, there are 4.7 million dog-bite victims a year in the United States. About 800,000 of those need medical attention — about 1,000 a day go to emergency rooms. About 15 to 20 people die annually. Most of the victims who receive medical attention are children, and more than half of those age 4 or under are bitten in the face or neck.

The CDC says pit bulls and Rottweilers kill more humans than any other breed. In the United States, pit bulls make up 3% of the overall dog population but are responsible for more than 50% of serious attacks. Rottweilers have become the nation's deadliest dog breed, surpassing pit bulls, according to a 2000 study by the American Veterinary Medical Assn.

Using American Kennel Club registration data, the study's authors found that "as the breed has soared in popularity, so have Rottweiler-related deaths" — 24,195 registered from 1979 through 1982 and zero deaths; 272,273 registrations from 1983 through 1990 and six deaths; and 692,799 registrations from 1991 through 1998 and 33 deaths.

The study found that Rottweilers were responsible for about half of human dog-bite-related deaths reported from 1993 to 1998, when the breed was identifiable. Together, Rottweilers and pit bull-type dogs accounted for 67% of the human dog-bite-related fatalities in the United States between 1997 and 1998.

The study's authors concluded: "It is extremely unlikely that they [pit bulls and Rottweilers] accounted for anywhere near 60% of dogs in the United States during that same period and, thus, there appears to be a breed-specific problem with fatalities."

How do other countries handle these dogs? Laws in France and Britain make it illegal to import, breed or sell pit bulls. They also must be kept muzzled and on a lead in public and, in order to ensure that the breed dies out, they must be neutered. France also requires Rottweilers to be muzzled in public. Germany has banned the importation of pit bulls. The county of Quaregnon in Belgium has effectively banned the Rottweiler — they must be muzzled and are not permitted in public places. Australia has long had laws restricting the ownership of pit bulls. In our country, cities in Arkansas, Colorado, Indiana, Kansas, Missouri, North Dakota, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah and Washington have banned Rottweilers and pit bulls.

Continental Airlines will not ship pit bulls or pit bull mixes older than 6 months or over 20 pounds.

With dog-bite losses exceeding $1 billion a year, with $345 million paid by insurance, according to an industry group, more and more insurance companies are refusing to offer homeowners insurance policies to people who own such dogs as pit bulls, Rottweilers, Doberman pinschers and German shepherds. The average claim for a dog bite is $16,600, according to State Farm.

Surprisingly, even the president of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals has called for banning pit bulls and euthanizing all that are taken to animal shelters. "These dogs were designed specifically to fight other animals and kill them, for sport," Ingrid Newkirk wrote in the San Francisco Chronicle in June. "An unpredictable Chihuahua is one thing, an unpredictable pit another."

Yet some still insist, as Assemblywoman Audra Strickland (R-Thousand Oaks) said in a Times story in August, that "the problem we have is not with our dogs but with our dog owners. There are a significant number of dog owners who abuse their dogs and condition them to fight and become vicious. Those people are the culprits."

Such people are loathsome and should be prosecuted for animal abuse, to be sure. And abused dogs of any breed are more likely to attack. But if abusive owners pull the trigger, the dog is still the gun. And if a poodle is a .22, a pit bull or Rottweiler is an AK-47.

Whether a dog is vicious because it is naturally mean or because it has been abused is irrelevant when your beloved pet — or child or grandfather for that matter — has a Rottweiler's jaws clamped around his throat.

Times Staff
To contact a staff member by e-mail, please compose an e-mail to them using this address format: Firstname.Lastname@latimes.com SamanthaBonar@latimes.com

[fbkeays]

This is what I wrote. You need to put a period between her first and last names or it gets rejected.
I have owned rottweilers for 10 years. In those 10 years I have paid in excess of $800 in vet bills on my own dogs for damage inflicted by labs, goldens and the mixed of those breeds on unprovoked attacks on my dogs. The first time a chocolate lab attacked my first rottweiler was when she was just six months old. She carried the scars on her face for years. The lab was a certified SAR dog. My dog was on leash in a public park, the lab was not.
The first time my second rottweiler was attacked was when he was about 4 months old. I was walking him on leash, on the sidewalk. We just a few hundred feet from my house in an upper middle class neighborhood. A golden male escaped from his backyard and came charging at my puppy. He jumped on his back, with his teeth bared. I had to kick him and drag my puppy out from underneath this golden retriever to rescue him. Fortunately no serious physical damage to my dog.
My first rottweiler was in obedience class the first time she had to see a vet due to infected bites to her backside. We were doing recalls and the lab owner wasn't paying attention. I called my dog and this black lab took off after my girl and sunk her teeth into her. Then there was the black lab female raced across a parking lot to sink her teeth into my male's neck as he was looking for a place to pee before agility class. Fortunately there was a vet hospital a short distance away to clean out his wounds. I can no longer compete in obedience with him because he freezes when he sees unleashed dogs in the next ring. He thinks they are going to come and attack him.
So based on my personal experience it is the retriever family, specifically Labradors and goldens that are the dangerous, vicious, and unpredictable breeds. My rottweilers are highly titled in conformation, obedience, herding, tracking, and carting. They also regularly act as the neutral dog in CGC tests. They are an asset to the community. But you want my dogs to be muzzled, castrated and banned instead.

[Cash]

This article has a lot of us steaming mad here in LA. I've already written her a letter and my club is too. I am glad to see so many others responding as well. People like this...

[Ayoka]

When I read these articles I always double check the resource, read the source of information.

I found a CDC article on their site, "Dog-Bite–Related Fatalities — United States, 1995–1996" (ftp://ftp.cdc.gov/pub/Publications/mmwr/wk/mm4621.pdf) and while this reporter uses it to justify breed Banning the article says that animal control targetting specific breeds may not be the answer (p.466)

If I were to write in I would point out how the author has misrepresented the study and based her article on anecdotal evidence.

I realise that this is an opinion piece and this woman is certainly entitled to hers however, the fact that she could not find a study that wholly supports breed bans says a lot...

[Cash]

Originally Posted by Ayoka

If I were to write in I would point out how the author has misrepresented the study and based her article on anecdotal evidence.

Good point. Perhaps you should change your "If" to "When" and do so yourself.

[scooterjohansen]

So if there is close to 1 million registrations in the USA in 2005 ( I Annualised the reporters figures) and on this forum there is at the most 100 people who would write in and actively defend the breed, that suggests one thing. No chance for the Rottweiler.

[Diane Heller-Vaccaro]

I'm sure more then 100 people will write a letter. I just came here to look and make sure the information was posted. I sent the link to the 3 Rottweiler clubs I belong to. Believe they will get more than enough mail. The question is, will it matter?

[fostermom]

I just emailed her. Said this:

I just read your article "With Best Friends Like This..." which was posted on a discussion board and felt I needed to respond to it. I own two rottweilers. I also foster dogs: rottweilers, labs, goldens, shepherds. I am sorry your dog was attacked by a rottweiler. I am also sorry that you chose to stereotype and promote the stereotyping of this breed because of one animal. I truely hope most people are intelligent enough to not do the same. If we want to play the statistics game (and I work in research and understand how statistics can be manipulated), then most crime (proportionally) is commited by Blacks...so let's ban Blacks. Most car accidents (proportionally) are by teen-agers so let's ban letting teen-agers drive until aged 21. Most dog bites are by small dogs so lets ban all small breeds!!

My rottweilers are well socialized and sociable, well trained, gentle dogs. My adult male who started his life out as a back-yard dog and so statistically should have been one of your unstable, killer rottweilers just played mother hen to two four week old kittens I had found. The most aggressive (dog/food aggressive) dog I fostered was a female golden. My rotti was attacked while I was walking him down the sidewalk on leash by a lab mix that had slipped his collar. My rotti didn't even defend himself....I had to keep swinging at the lab with my purse! If you had bothered to check the AKC breed description, you would have seen the rottweiler described as a calm, stable temperment. What is needed is more responsible ownership, not breed bans.

[aquarius3079]

I live in PA but she ticked me off so I wrote too.

[pazzo]

I wrote too! It never ceases to amaze me how narrow minded people can be. If one breed is banned sucessfully, they will be on to the next, by "they" I mean the irresponsible people who buy and own any of these dogs for the wrong reasons. When the Presa killed that woman, the demand for those dogs sky rocketed! If there is demand for any certain type of dog,drug,(illegal anything)there will be supply. Bad people always figure out a way, it's the good one's that get hurt by these stupid laws!

[Imre0538]

This is what I wrote:--My feeling of impending doom is incresing.

I am writing in reference to your article "With Best Friends Like This" which was posted on a discussion board and felt I needed to respond to it. I own two rottweilers. Both are trained in basic and advanced obedience. I work very hard to preserve the rottweiler legacy, I constantly train my dogs today, to have an effect on the rottweilers name tomorrow. It is one-sided comments and editorials such as yours that make my job even harder, more arguments that I have to fight for my dogs good name. I have a question: 'Had it been a Labrador Retriever that attacked your dog, would you have lashed out against the Labrador breed in the same way that you have lashed out at the Rottweiler breed??', 'Would you have made such a passionate, hateful pursue to have the Labrador Retriever banned?' Some how I don't think you would have. Speaking from a professional point of view in a real world situation (Veterinary Tech for 5+ years) I can tell you that 'uncontrollable' and 'violent' dogs come in ALL BREEDS. I have seen a 10 pound poodle more violent than a 100 pound rottweiler. I think you need to stick to your first and correct belief; 'That there are no bad dogs, just bad owners.' You have done one of the worst things any person can do, and that is to lash out in anger. You are angry because your 'baby' has been attacked and hurt, and for this I am sorry; but you simply CANNOT try to influence the general public, govenment, etc. that this is a bad dog simply because it is a rottweiler. We as rottweiler owners have enough to deal with, without your thirst for a witch hunt. You are angry at the one dog that attacked your dog, and you want to hurt that dog and its entire breed, just as much as he hurt your dog, and more. This is wrong and unfair of you and you are using your power of the media in a most dishonorable manner. Just a sample of what we as rottweiler owners have to deal with, without your slanderous comments.
-Imagine yourself walking with a newfoundland (which is an equally large dog) that you know is the friendliest, sweetest, biggest baby in the world, yet at some places you walk, people climb the walls screaming bloody murder and your dog hasn't even looked in their direction.
-Think of yourself trying to find a rental apartment, condo, or house, and you can't even get 'rot---' out of your mouth before getting turned down, and sometimes not in a polite way.
-Imagine yourself buying your first house, and then you can't even get insurance on that house because of the dog you have, YET you have worked 2+ years to train the dog in basic and advanced obedience. The dog has a CGC, etc. Do they care? No. They Don't. No one cares that you have worked to make your dog the best dog they can be, they care that they are a rottweiler, and that's all that matters. That's all they need to hear.

I think you need to re-think what you have done. It was wrong, close-minded, petty, and done out of resentment. Your plee for the eradicaton of Rottweilers is not the answer. Where would the world be if all things that caused pain, anger, discrepancy, death, war, etc. were annihilated no matter if it was just one of many? I think you, and many others would be put out of a job.

[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.

[Diane Heller-Vaccaro]

They should also know that PETA is responsible for killing healthy dogs and puppies and dumping them in a dumpster. PETA members are being charged with animal cruelty and the trial is coming up very soon. There goal is to eliminate companionship of all animals. So anyone sitting home stroking their toy poodle and giving the nod to PETA, but hold tight because if Ingrid has her way you won't even be able to have a gold fish, unless it is a cracker.

go to this link to read how they took animals from shelters and euthanized them, which it is illegal for anyone other than a vet or shelter to be in possession of the drug.

www.republicanfactor.com/?p=8

I'm using this in my letter to discredit any statement made by PETA.

[rottie597]

I just got a snotty reply from this columnist. She claims that ALL the responses she got from rottweiler owners were "knee-jerk" and that we did not see the big picture. She also claimed that she was simply in favor of a few sensible regs (which she was sure I would agree with): which would not effectively ban rotties. I'm confused....the "good first step" she mentions is requiring spaying/neutering of certain breeds. Did I miss something in sex ed?

[ElsasFamily]

Originally Posted by rottie597

I just got a snotty reply from this columnist. She claims that ALL the responses she got from rottweiler owners were "knee-jerk" and that we did not see the big picture. She also claimed that she was simply in favor of a few sensible regs (which she was sure I would agree with): which would not effectively ban rotties. I'm confused....the "good first step" she mentions is requiring spaying/neutering of certain breeds. Did I miss something in sex ed?

I have yet to send her a letter, but will soon remedy that. In my opinion the only reason this article was even put in print was because a Rottweiler attacked her dog. I'm positive that was a horrible experience however; one bad apple shouldn’t spoil the whole bunch.

As long as we stick to hard core facts and not much emotion I believe Rottweiler owners will make a strong hard case.

Not sure if it matters or not, but IMHO all Rottweiler owners have a duty to contact this woman and others like her and let her know the facts, whether we live in the state it is effecting or not!


And NO you did not miss something in sex-ed...She has missed the friggen big, picture.

Boy the power of print and press truly is impressive. She has gotten me fired up.