Another Day, Another Bad Pit Story
Once again, someone in the Bay Area has been attacked by her own pit bull. Once again, watch for ample coverage of the fact that the pit bull was a pit bull, and relatively sparse coverage of the fact that the dog had a history of aggressive behavior, and sparser coverage still over whether or not he was neutered (the smart money says he wasn’t).
Speaking of crappy coverage, remember how Rex, the oversized “pit bull” believed to have mauled Nicholas Fabish to death supposedly had no prior history of violence? Or, as would-be pit bull Expert* C.W. Nevius recently put it, that Rex had previously behaved like “the sweetest, most loving pet in the world [who] plays with neighborhood kids all the time?” Err…, not quite. We now know he had bitten Nicholas earlier that day, prompting his idiot mother to lock Nicholas in the basement before disappearing for two hours.
*So ExpertTM is Mr. Nevius, I might add, that he’s the only person in the world who has managed to uncover the well-kept secret that pit bulls have an unusually low tolerance for pain.
UPDATE: John Cole alerts me to another tragic incident apparently involving a pit bull, this one in Huntington, WV. Once again, the “pit bull” in question weighed 80 pounds, again raising serious doubts as to whether the “pit bull” was in fact a pit bull. Once again, the “pit bull” was a dog with known aggressive tendencies who had recently bitten someone else, and in this case was supposed to be under quarantine at the time. And once again, the media hides the ball as to whether or not he was an unneutered male. Interesting discussion here. It got particularly interesting when an an anti-pit activist cited to a bunch of phony pit bull “facts” she had unwittingly pulled from a pro-pit bull (or, more generally, anti-BSL) site, which in turn proceeds to debunk these made-up “facts” on a separate page.
June 16th, 2005 at 5:25 am
[...] ane Society is paying people $10 to bring their Pit Bulls in to be neutered. Meanwhile, Xrlq notes another pit bull attack and wagers: Once again, watch for ample coverag [...]
June 16th, 2005 at 4:01 pm
There was just a kid that got killed a couple weeks ago here in WV by a Pit Bull. In Huntington, I believe.
Take that for what it is worth.
June 28th, 2005 at 11:26 am
I am not sure how you can justify your defense of pit bulls. Every day in the news you hear about some innocent victim who has been savagely mauled by one of these animals, and those are just the cases we hear about.
June 28th, 2005 at 1:30 pm
“Just the cases we hear about” is just about all of them, and then some. Unfortunately, you have to dig deep to find the real story, e.g., the fact that some of these “pit bulls” aren’t pit bulls at all, that most are poorly socialized, that nearly all are unneutered males, etc., which pose equal problems for dogs of any breed. And contrary to the hype, such incidents don’t happen every day. If you read about it every day, that says more about media hype than anything else.
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion. Unfortunately, anti-pit crusaders seem to think they’re entitled to their own set of facts, as well.
June 28th, 2005 at 2:07 pm
You said, “Unfortunately, anti-pit crusaders seem to think they’re entitled to their own set of facts, as well.”
…And vice versa for pit bull crusaders. Unneutered males may pose the greatest threat (there’s a joke there about our species as well), but they are not responsible for all the vicious attacks. I know of several attacks that involve female pit bulls and none of these cases ever made it to the mainstream media.
I am not sure where you get your facts about these attacks by unneutered males anyway. Are you out there doing an anatomical check on these dogs? Most of the stories I have read omit the information about the neutered status of the dog.
I have to ask you this: If a outright ban on pit bulls goes too far, do you think owners should be punished more severely when their dogs attack and kill someone? Of course, it’s too late by then to benefit the victim, but something needs to be done. A message needs to be sent to irresponsible pet owners that there will be consequences for their negligence. What do you think?
June 28th, 2005 at 4:50 pm
Which, I presume would be me. Feel free to identify any factually incorrect statements I have made about the breed, if you can. No one is doubting that some dogs that aren’t unneutered males also attack people. Of course they do. And of course there are many more unneutered males of all breeds that don’t attack people than there are that do. The question is which dogs pose a significantly greater risk than others. Unneutered males, as a group, do. Pit bulls, as a group, do not – unless you’re talking about risks to other dogs they were originally bred to fight.
You are right that most of the stories you (or I) have read omit important details such as the neutered status, or sometimes even the sex, of the dog. That’s why you have to read defensively and dig deep. Search the SF Chronicle’s archives for the name “Faibish” and you’ll find too many articles to count reminding you that the dog that killed the poor kid was a pit bull. You’ll find relatively few pointing out that the dog weighed 80 lbs., and none at all pointing out that this is an uncharacteristically (and almost implausibly) large size for the breed, or that at least one dog trainer who examined the dog, Ron Cole, doubts that the dog even was a pit. [You'll probably have an easier time finding the snotty article by C.W. Nevius in which he sneering at pit bull owners for questioning the dog's breed - two days before his own paper ran that story.] And if memory serves you’ll find one article – count ‘em, one – bothering to report SFPD Sgt. William Herndon’s observation that almost all of the dogs brought before the city’s “vicious dog” court are American Pit Bull Terriers unneutered males. So yes, the information is there, but you’ll have to wade through quite a bit of “blah blah blah pit bulls blah blah did I mention pit bulls blah blah this dog was a pit bull blah blah bred to kill dogs people whats the diff blah blah blah the evil pit bull blah blah pit bull blah blah did I mention pit bulls are evil blah blah blah blah blah blah blah” to find it.
Another fact which tends to get underreported is, ironically enough, the dog’s breed – unless of course, that breed happens to be pit bull. If a dog is a mutt that looks like it could be a pit bull (as most dogs do), chances are pretty good it will be identified as a bit, and almost nil that its breed will be reported at all if it is not. If it’s a pit/lab mix, watch for a few stories to falsely report it as a pit, a few more to half-truthfully report it as a pit mix, and almost none to tell the other half of the truth. If you’re looking for a reason why the news makes it sound as though pits always attack people and labs or other breeds never do, that’s it.
Case in point: think back to San Francisco’s other, much more publicized dog mauling case from 2001. You know, those two menacing-looking behemoth dogs we kept seeing on TV, who were owned/boarded/”leased” by those scummy lawyers Robert Noel and Marjorie Knoller, who ended up mauling their neighbor Diane Whipple to death in front of her own apartment. You remember that story, right? Good. Now, without peeking, Googling, etc., can you name the breed of those dogs? If you can, good for you; you are the exception to the rule. But if you can’t, don’t beat yourself up; it’s not your fault the media bombarded us with the story day in and day out, yet almost never bothered to tell you the dogs’ breed.
As to your last question, the answer is an almost-yes. The “yes” part because I do agree that irresponsible dog owners, without regard to breed, should be dealt with firmly, and that somehow the message needs to get out. The “almost” part is that at least in California, I don’t think any new laws are necessary. The system we have now was tough enough to convict Marjorie Knoller of murder and Robert Noel of manslaughter three years ago, and it’s tough enough to charge Maureen Faibish with felony child endangerment now. I don’t see the point of tightening the screws further than that, except with respect to spaying and neutering.
June 29th, 2005 at 9:03 am
I’ve known for a long time the breed of dogs that killed that woman in California. They were Presas Canarios, if my memory is correct. They also are alleged to be fighting dogs, like pit bulls.
I don’t see how a total ban on these breeds is possible, but laws could be changed to make it a little more uncomfortable for people who choose these breeds, regarding liability insurance, neuter/spay laws, and breeder certification, not to mention making it a felony if your dog kills/attacks someone.
June 29th, 2005 at 9:53 am
You are right about the breed in the Knoller/Noel case, which most people don’t know, and in noting the presa’s history of dog fighting. You are wrong, however, to imply that a history of dog fighting translates into aggression toward humans. Dogs are smart enough to know the difference between humans and other dogs, even if people are not.
Take a look at the UKC profiles for pits and presa canarios. You’ll note that while dog-aggression is a common problem for both breeds, the two breeds’ respective dispositions toward humans – and strangers, in particular – could scarcely be more different. Presa canarios are naturally wary of them, while pits are friendly to a fault: they make crummy guard dogs. No, I’m not arguing for laws targeting presa canarios, either, only pointing out that if you’re going to single out breeds that pose disproportional risks to humans, it makes more sense to go after them than after pits. Ditto for Chow Chows, for that matter. I don’t know anyone who’s been bitten by his pit bull, but I also don’t know anyone who hasn’t been bitten by his Chow. (unless, of course, you count people who don’t own them).
I’m not sure why you think more moderate BSL is more realistic or desirable than Denver-style prohibition, but I think any BSL is a really dumb idea. Pit bulls and their owners already have to take enough crap as it is. Better to adopt a general rule that says if you own a dog of any breed who is big enough and strong enough to do what Maureen Faibish’s dog did, and who acts nearly as menacing as Maureen Faibish’s dog did earlier that day (or before), you have to take better precautions than Maureen Faibish did. Period.
June 30th, 2005 at 9:09 am
Just curious…are you a pit bull owner?
June 30th, 2005 at 12:21 pm
Yes, albeit by accident. Both of our dogs are rescues, so we can’t know their breeds for sure but our best guess is that one is a pit and the other a pit-Rottie mix. We didn’t choose that breed either time, both dogs having instead chosen us. When we got the pit, we were asked to foster a “terrier mix,” only to learn months later what kind of “terrier” she was (American Pit Bull Terrier) and what she was likely “mixed” with (nothing). When we first learned that this ultra-friendly dog, who shied away from one of our cats, was a pit bull, we thought the trainer was kidding. Ditto for the pit-Rottie mix we got a half a year later. When we got her from the pound, she was supposed to be a three-month old German Shepherd mix. Here’s a pic.
Between our experiences and those of a friend who unknowingly owned a pit bull for years (she only learned of it years after the dog had died, by meeting our pit who looked and acted exactly like hers), I’m convinced that at least half the people who think they hate pit bulls actually know some pit bulls they love, but don’t realize they are pit bulls.
June 30th, 2005 at 4:24 pm
Well, I am glad you have had good luck with your pets. I realize that not all pits are bad, but the breed, as a whole, is prone to aggression.
I never hated pit bulls until I had bad run-ins with a few. Ever since, I have nothing but disdain for the breed. I hope you can understand that. I don’t judge them by the media. I do, however, judge them from my experiences with them.
And today, there were more reports of pit bull attacks in the US. One woman’s pets were attacked in their own yard. The pit bull(s) went under the woman’s privacy fence to get to her dogs. After the attack, the neighbor, who owned the two pit bulls, blamed the victim’s dogs for the attack, saying the dogs had been teasing her animals.
The statistics just don’t show that pit bulls are as wonderful as some pit bull owners, like yourself, seem to think.
I hope you never have a bad experience with a pit bull. It’s something you never want to experience or witness, take my word for it.
June 30th, 2005 at 5:58 pm
I certainly understand having disdain for a breed of dog you’ve had bad experiences with. I’ve had similar experience with Chows, and as a result, that’s probably the one breed I have disdain for myself. Nevertheless, I’d urge you to keep an open mind, particularly in light of statistics that are, at best, inconclusive. Overall dog bite stats are almost worthless, as no one knows how big each breed’s population is, either in absolute numbers or by comparison to the others. If, for example, a study came out tomorrow indicating that three times as many people get bitten by pit bulls than by Chows, there’d be no way to tell whether this means pit bulls are three times more dangerous than Chows, whether the two are equally dangerous but pits are three times more prevalent, or something else. The only stats I’m aware of that do control for breed are these, which indicate that a pit’s temperament is, on average, better than most. And depending on the city you live in, the pound is probably about half-full of pits, suggesting that their street population – and thus, the sub-population most likely to get involved in an incident – is disproportionally high.
That said, there’s no getting around the fact that dog-aggression is a common problem for pits, more so than most other breeds. This is consistent with the story you just referred to, and reminds me of the one kind of BSL I could almost support: require all dogs to be on a leash or fenced in, but impose stiffer penalties on owners of pits, presas, or dogs of any other breed that has be shown to be more likely to attack people or property of others.
I’m also not surprised that the dogs’ owner is in denial. The dogs are probably total sweethearts to her, and to everyone she knows, so it’s tough to imagine that the same dogs can instantly turn vicious around another dog. This is the flip side of the anti-pit activist who witnesses a fight between dogs, and falsely concludes that the same dogs are a menace to children.
As to that kind of bad experience with a pit bull, trust me, I’ve had my share. In fact, I’ve had to break up some pretty nasty fights involving one or both of my dogs. At least twice, I’ve had to physically pry open one of their jaws to force her to release the other dog, even while the other dog was practically trying to kill her (in the last incident, the other dog, a Whippet mix, had bitten off a piece of flesh from her chest). Despite that, I never got bitten myself, except once by the other dog, a German Shepherd. That Jeckel/Hyde, “kill the other dog but don’t even nip a human who jumps in between” disposition fits everything I’ve read about the breed’s history to a tee.
July 1st, 2005 at 10:57 am
Xrlq, you said, “As to that kind of bad experience with a pit bull, trust me, I’ve had my share. In fact, I’ve had to break up some pretty nasty fights involving one or both of my dogs. At least twice, I’ve had to physically pry open one of their jaws to force her to release the other dog, even while the other dog was practically trying to kill her.”
You don’t see this behavior as a problem? What if it was your child in the jaws of one of these pit bulls?
July 1st, 2005 at 11:42 am
Of course it’s a problem. It’s just not the same problem you suggest it is. Dog aggression does not translate into aggression against children. Thus, your question “what if it was your child in the jaws of one of these pit bulls” does not make any sense – even setting aside the fact that “one of these pit bulls,” wasn’t. If one of those dogs had been my child, there would have been no fight, and nobody would have ended up in anybody’s jaws. As a result of their unusually high tolerance for pain, pit bulls are, if anything, more tolerant of kids pulling ears, tails, etc.
Ever watch the Little Rascals? Do you constantly cringe thinking Petey could flip out any minute and maul them half to death? I hear that pit bull was so vicious he eventually caused one of the Little Rascals to murder his wife.
July 1st, 2005 at 1:09 pm
You just haven’t seen it become a problem yet. I am hoping you will never see it become a problem with your pits and kids. It’s a horror you won’t soon forget, believe me.
September 2nd, 2005 at 4:11 pm
http://www.pitbullpress.com/ARTICLES/CASTRO.html
I just wanted to share this article with the “all pit bulls should die” people. It’s about Kris Crawford, who uses her dogs in search and rescue operations. I first saw her on (I believe) Animal Planet. Kris and her pit bull, Dakota, were one of the teams used to find the remains of the astronauts from the Columbia disaster. She also recounted how, during a training session, her dog was wearing the blanket identifying him as a rescue dog was beaten by a man with a golf club because he thought the dog was going to attack him.
People make dogs dangerous, and ANY dog has the potential to be dangerous with mishandling.
September 13th, 2005 at 8:29 pm
i think that its not the dog its self its the owner and how its trained for my sister ows three pit bulls and an otistic child so he is constantly pulling ears (ect) yet they have never had a problem at all and one of the dogs mothers was a fighting trained dog and the pup doesnt show it at all.plus the only reason that pit bulls leave such an impact is beacause thay have very strong muscles in there jaw and rest of there body. For instence there was a dog show in my home town a while back and a small pitt bull maby three feet long pulled over 1220 pounds in blocks im not sure how far but a fair ways and won 1st to say that not all pits are vicious but strong.
September 13th, 2005 at 10:19 pm
That’s a breed thing, too, to some extent. That very same tolerance for pain that kept the losing pit fighting to the death, also makes the pet bull more tolerant of kids’ ear- and tail-pulling than other breeds would be.
September 26th, 2005 at 12:24 am
I should probably read the rest of the comments before I post anything. I did however want to include one statistic on dog attacks. I’ll start by saying that I had a very difficult time finding any dog attack statistics that were recent, so I heartily appreciate the link to the ATTS. Regardless among my findings, both cattle and horses were responsible for more deaths each year than all breeds of dog combined. In addition I think Rottweilers were responsible for more of the attacks. I don’t like to get breed specific though, because it is part of the reason why certain breeds of dog become “vicious” in the first place. A certain breed will get a reputation, and then every person who desire to exude a tough veneer buys this dog for the wrong reason.
I would also like to add a comment about enforcing more stringent insurance policies on “viscious” dog owners. The types of regulations that are proposed in these contracts require the animals to be chained up or in small pens at all times. All animals instinctively have a fight or flight response when they feel threatened, if you take away an animals ability to flee a potentially dangerous situation, he will learn to be ready to fight. These types of laws are inadvertantly creating more dangerous animals.
May 7th, 2006 at 12:53 pm
Wow. I just can’t believe how ignorant some people are to the pitbull race of dogs. Do people REALLy believe everything they see/read in the media? I find it ridiculous, first of all, when I hear of a pitbull attack then they show the pic of a shepard/husky or a boxer/lab or whatever. God that drives me nuts. But, most importantly comes the BSL. Why OH WHY, would the goverment actually think this will work. First of all, banning a breed of dog will only cause for another (like presas or Corsos who are much more wary of strangers than the anti-guard-dog-pitbulls…) breed of dog to become popular – and the pitbull owners who have their dogs for the wrong reasons, who do not socialize them, and who breed these dogs in their backyard will NOT be obeying the laws anyway! I love pitbulls – I do not own one though I have fostered some pitbulls – and I must say we had one girl who wanted to EAT our cats, and who fought with our 120lb American Bulldog – but when my 3yr old goddaughter would come over (and the cats weren’t around obviously) she would lick her to death, let her sit on her, pull on her, anything, without one complaint or one strange look – just in pure ecstacy loving the child. THAT’S how I see pitbulls.
Please, punish the deed, not the breed. Stupid Owners are the real problem.
June 15th, 2006 at 5:48 am
23 years ago I witnessed a pit bull terrier attack a ten year old little boy. I grabbed an aluminum baseball bat from one of the kids and used it to KILL the pit bull in question. I dont regret it. I fractured the dogs skull and after 6 blows the viscious dog died and the child was safe.
There is now a 33 year old man alive because I did what I did. I am the alleged “anti pitbll activist” that you refer to in West Virginia. Last year a pit killed a little girl un my hometown, The police have shot a total of six pits within the last year in the course of drug raids in this area.
I am not so much against a breed as long as they don’t attack children or cops. A pit bull is the only breed that I have ever been forced to kill in defense of a child,
June 15th, 2006 at 9:57 am
Gee, I wonder what the salient point is – the pit bull or the drug raid? Potato, potahto.
This sounds like a prime example of what I used to call Pauline Kael Syndrome, until I learned that the quote inspiring it appears to be apocryphal. Most of us have never had to kill any dog in defense of anyone, and I’ll bet that hasn’t happened too many times to you, either. In fact, I’m going to go out on a really short limb and venture a guess that your own personal sample size is just about 1, which is as close to a textbook example of “not statistically significant” as it gets. According to the Humane Society, there are about 4.5 million dog attacks in the United States every year. Not all are against children, of course, but it’s a safe bet that a healthy chunk of them are. Some of these attacks involve pit bulls; most do not. Pit bulls may be a tad over-represented, but that has a lot more to do with their popularity among drug dealers (see above) than with their temperament as a breed. Dobermans had the same problem in the 1970s, when they were the bad dog du jour. Some breed will always enjoy that unhappy distinction, and whatever breed that is will look worse than the others, on average. Dogs aim to please.
While you’re completely and totally wrong about BSL, I do salute you for doing what you had to do in order to protect that kid. I trust you’d have done the same if the aggressor dog had been a Rottweiler, a Presa Canario, a German Shepherd, a Golden Retriever, or anything else. And they do all bite, and once in a great while, even kill. No breed does this very often (total dog bite fatalities hover around 20 a year nationally), but they all do it on occasion. Even Pomeranians have been known to pull that off in some cases.