It really should only take one

One of the biggest arguments we hear when people want to ban pit bulls is that somehow pit bulls are inherantly dangerous, that there is something "different" about the "breed" that makes them meaner, "likely to snap without cause", or "unstable".

Then, every now and again, the news media will pick up on a story about a pit bull that becomes a service dog or rescue dog.  Here is a story about a rescued pit bull that has become a service dog. (Dog is pictured left).  Then, there was this story about a group of therapy dogs (including a pit bull) that finished their "graduation" last week in Williamsport, VA.

This isn't unusual at all for pit bull-type dogs to be service dogs or search and rescue dogs.  Many organizations specialize in their training -- including Law Dogs USA that trains pit bulls to be working police dogs.  Check out their site as to why pit bulls make such great law dogs.  Diane Jessup is well known also for her job in training pit bulls as service dogs.

It should really only take one though.  Think about it, if only one pit bulls was well respected as a service dog, or rescue dog, or police dog, it would be enough evidence that there is nothing wrong with the "breed" --and that they could be trained to be good dogs.  Nurture would rule. 

Unfortunately, what everyone ends up thinking that it's pit bulls that are the problem.  It never is.  They are what you make them.  The proof is out there, if only people cared to look.

Comments

[Tim]

I don't know if pit bulls are more likely to bite, the concern is the strength of the jaws and a literal attack rather than a simple bite. And I know the defense of "It's the owner, not the dog that's at fault" is popular. Unfortunately, there's usually only one way you find out that the dog had a bad owner, and that's after an attack.

[Brent]

Tim,

Thanks for the note, and I don't blame you for your point of view. Unfortunately, if you base opinions on what you see in the media, you would naturally think that.

The reality is that there is no evidence that pit bulls bite harder than any other similar-sized dog. I point you to an Ohio Court Case Toledo vs Tellings http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/newpdf/6/2006/2006-ohio-975.pdf -- read section 25 and the expert testimoney on tht matter (section 4 gives Dr. Brisbin's Bio).

Regardless, it really doesn't matter a lot the size of the dog. Given that the vast majority of major dog attacks (79% of fatlaties) involve young children -- you can see the fatlity numbers here: http://www.fataldogattacks.com/statistics.html it can really be a mid-sized dog that can be a problem.

Also, the part that the newspapers never put enough emphasis on is that most major dog attacks involve dogs that have some type of history that forshadows this incident. They almost always have been involved in another attack of some type, although more minor. This is never emphasised, but is usually the case. But this is why I usually prefer an ordinance like Olathe's, which has a behavioral tier system where a dog can be deemed dangerous based on behavior (that doesn't include a bite), and then will be deemed "vicious" if it does bite. "Dangerous" and "vicious" come with separate sets of restrictions. It's very proactive, and can identify dangerous dogs before they bite...