My Photo


follow us in feedly

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

Best Of KC Dog Blog

Become a Fan

« Paws & Claus | Main | Sioux City, IA targets those who speak up for good government »

November 19, 2008



Sure sounds like Arkansas City, KS just got flabbergasted with the basic 'find the pit bull game' and so decided just to list all the breeds they ID'ed as pits in the game. Like the Alpha Blue -- which really doesn't look like a pit, except in some of the 'games'.

This is getting ridiculous, but the UNfunny part is that yes, I do fear for German Shepherds in all of this. Once this 'HERO' dog ends up on more lists of discrimated breeds, it is the beginning of the end of our companionship w/ dogs.

And can you EVEN imagine the nightmare of positively and properly ID'ing Shepherd mixes???



It's my understanding that there has been a bit of drug trafficking going on in Arkansas City, and that this crack down is basically an attempt to get after the people that they perceive to be the owners of these types of dogs. Given that it seems to be targeted at one individual, that seems to add up. I'm not sure when, or how, city councils came to the conclusion that dog laws were the way to stop drug trafficking....



You are right, thugs use big mean dogs as a way of projecting their tough guy image. Since in order to help this image they make their dogs mean.

As a result other dogs, cats or people get hurt or killed.

Pit Bull type dogs are just bigger and when they attack they can do more damage.

We just had another pit bull attack the other day of a girl trying to be eaten while swinging.

I have been bit a few times, my daughter has been bit by a 90 pound chow/lab mix. My family dog bit some kid in the face (but did not break the skin).

There is a big difference between a bite and when a pit bull attacks. If you are swinging all your might at a dog with a base ball bat (or shovel) and it is doing no good. What does that say about the breed. This is all too common of a story.

In all those other bite/attacks a loud yell or raised hands or a swift quick was enough to stop anything further.

I 100% agree that it is the owners responsiblity. But the fact of the matter is there are way too many A-holes out their who want to own a pit bull as an image enhancer, protect their drug stash, for dog fighting or to be used as guard dogs.

And because of this BSL is a good thing.



Your logic doesn't track. You agree that it is 100% owner responsibility - -and that there are way too many A-holes out there that want a 'pit bull' as an image enhander, to protect their drug stash, for fighting, or for guard dogs. But you think BSL is a good thing? That is illogical.

First off, 1/2 of those people you mention (the ones with the drug stash and are fighting dogs) are already breaking felony laws. It's not logical to think that they will somehow simply obey a misdemeanor dog law. There's no way that logic makes sense.

Meanwhile, for the owners who want a big tough dog, or one for an image inhancer or as a guard dog, what is to prevent these people from getting a different type of dog for this purpose. There are dozens of large, powerful dog breeds out there that can be used for this purpose -- most are significantly larger and stronger than any of the 'pit bull' breeds-- certainly Mastiffs, St. Bernards, Rottweilers, Presa Canarios, German Shepherds, Dobermans, Great Danes, etc are all larger, stronger dogs. Are we going to ban all of them as they move along?

At some point, if we're going to solve the problem, we have to deal with the actual people who are using dogs for illegal purposes, or using them because they want to be tough, or using them as guard dogs, or we're never going to solve the problem. We can either deal with them after we ban 50 different breeds of dogs, or we can not harass people who are raising dogs the right way, and not causing problems, and focus all of our animal control and police resources on the people who are problems -- most of them for reasons far beyond their dogs. That solution seems obvious, I just cannot see how Breed Specific Laws do anything other than take resources away from dealing with the real problems. And past failures of these laws have proven that out.


[quote]Pit Bull type dogs are just bigger and when they attack they can do more damage.[/quote]

Not logical and disproven


[quote] My family dog bit some kid in the face (but did not break the skin).[/quote]

You might want to try and become a more responsible pet owner.

Have owned many mutts including dogs you would describe as Pit type dogs and have NEVER had a family dog bite some kid in the face(as you put it).
In fact I`ve never had a dog snarl,growl,nip...get it?
It`s about the owner not the dog.

This says a lot about you as an owner.
This is exactly why owners(like yourself) must be targeted rather than the dog that you happen to have in your home.



Please...put down the cool aide. The kid was teasing the dog and barking in his face from 2 inches away. He got bit and it did not break the skin. Dog only reacts badly to black people - barks (don't ask me why).

Again, this whole argument is one never ending circle....the pro pit bull crunchies...whip out bite force data and dog shrinks who make the claim, aggression can not be bread - or "look how much training it takes to make a dog fight".

When people dealing in reality just have to look down the street at the punks tying up their pit bulls to a rusty transmissions in their front yard, or ask the cops who shoot first and ask questions later, or the people who have lost dogs to the mouths of pit bulls, or the dog fight trainers who say they train the dogs to make them a better fighter...."you think I want to do sit-ups every morning when I wake up - this is why I go to the gym and pay some punk money to make me do situps".

Your right... the owners should be targeted.....because it is bad owners who are giving the pit bulls a bad name. Now because of this it is easier just to take away the pit bulls. Or do other things to make pit bull ownership more responsible.

How about putting $5,000 in state escrow account when you purchase a pit bull. And you get the money back plus interest when your dog passes away without attacking anyone or killing anyone (dogs or cats not included).

Or how about these other fine ideas.

People under 25 can't own a pit bull.
People with any kind of arrest can't own a pit bull.

And yes there is the chance if you do away with the pit bull, poor dog owners who want the dog to enhance their image will go to another larger breed. Maybe...but my friend just bought and Irish Wolfhound...very friendly dog but it scares the crap out of me (its 7 feet tall stretched out and not even 1 year old yet). The dog eats way too much food for the standard every day punk on the street to own and care for.

Just my two cents....but then advice is usually more like 20 bucks because it is always right.


"Your right... the owners should be targeted.....because it is bad owners who are giving the pit bulls a bad nameNow because of this it is easier just to take away the pit bulls. Or do other things to make pit bull ownership more responsible."

Doug, I still don't follow the logic. How is it easier (or wiser) to target all 'pit bull' owners than the people who are tying their dogs up to rusty transimissions? Why not just target the guys tying up dogs on log chains to rusty transmissions? Would it make you feel better if they were tying of Rotties or Doberman's on log chains onto transmissions? Why use animal control resources dealing with someone who may have a pit bull mix, but may actually be a boxer mix, or mastiff mix, or something else?

Why not just target the people who are a problem in the first place?

This is why virtually every city (and several whole countries) that has passed some type of breed ban have ended up with an increase in dog bites after they pass the ordinance. They're successful in getting 'pit bull' bites to go down by lowering the number of those types of dogs in a community, but overall bites didn't go down -- and in most cases, went up. Why is that? Because they a) never focused on the actual problem and b) used resources dealing with people who were never a problem in the first place.

What is it that makes you think it's easier to ban pit bulls, than to deal with the irresponsible owners in the first place? When statistically, and from a case study perspective, it has never worked out that way.



Really.....I read the link you sounds like the national canine research council is a few people, a computer and $40 submitted yearly to "godady" to get their website.

Have you read the 2007 year end report. The 2007 report is one god dam page long. A high school junior could have put together a better executive summary...and the funny thing does not look like its an executive summary it actually looks like the full report.

Oh my I just took the time and look a little deeper, the twit who put this one page report together just happen to write two Pro Pit Bull books.

Keep drinking the cool aide Anon..."not logical and disproven". Did you go to the same fact checking shcool as Karen? Wanda Burrel School of Fact Checking?



Have you ever heard the expression that if its everyone's responsiblity to turn off the light then no one is responsibile.

You have to start somewhere....and since your good friend Karen wrote two books about the issue, there seems to be some truth about the pit bulls being dangerous.

Since we can't make everyone responsible enough to be good pet owners. By focusing our efforts on a couple of breeds which historically have been dangerous enough to kill people I think this is a good start.

I would also be willing to let data support my decision.

I would be willing to say that which ever breed is shot the most by cops be the breed which is deemed the most dangerous.


Doug. Per usual, you have been really good at dodging questions instead of really answering them. But if you agree that it's an owner issue, and not a breed issue (which you've said now 3x), let me ask:

1) What is gained by focusing limited animal control resources on breeds instead of the problem owners? What is gained by wasting time on owners of dogs that are not (and will not be) problems because the dog they own is of a certain type?

2) Why would people who are committing felony crimes (drugs, dog fighting) obey a breed ban law? Why would that be easier to target them than the felony laws that themselves?

3) If somehow, you were able to get rid of all of dogs of a certain breed (no city has every succeeded at this BTW), what would prevent these irresponsible owners from changing what breeds of dogs they own and still continue to cause problems?

4) With 100+ cities in the US, and several countries overseas, having passed bans on particular breeds, why is it that there isn't yet one case study that shows a decrease in the total number of dog attacks after passing the ordinance?

5) Why does any of it make more sense than targeting the people who are irresponsible in the first place and focusing 100% of the resources on those people? Of all the successful case studies out there, this is what all the cities that have been successful at minimizing dog bites and attacks has done.


1) "What is gained by focusing limited animal control resources"..........Because we have limited resources, focus on the breeds which are causing the most problems....same deal with profiling at the airport.

2) Why would people who are committing felony crimes...treat it like a hate crime...i.e. you punch out a gay guy because he is an a-hole, you go to jail for a year. You punch out the same a-hole who just happens to be gay and then you call him a f-a-g they tack on an extra couple of years because it is a hate crime. Do the same thing for criminals with owning pit bulls, make it a Parole Violation and send them back to the clink or if they are in possision of a Pit while commiting another crime tack on another couple of years. Just me criminals will not want to go back to jail for a dog.

3) If somehow, you were able to get rid of all of dogs of a certain breed ........I have never said to get rid of the Breed, just proper BSL. The more pressure you put on people to be proper owners of dogs the more problem owners will go away.

4) With 100+ cities in the US, and several countries overseas......because their BSL is watered down and has no bite.

5) Why does any of it make more sense than targeting the people......its easier to target the breeds first and then the people...but I agree both should be done unfortuantly we are a reactive society.

Like it or not you need to bring up the class of people owning pit bulls in order to improve your image. And if you have to pass off blame onto another breed than so be it. The german shepherds did it to the dobermans, the dobermans did it to the Rots and the Rots did it to the pit bulls....unfortually you picked the wrong decade to own a pit bull... my advice is when your beloved pets pass on, hopefully many years from now, go get yourself a good golden retriever and you can change your blog to a postive one.


Again Doug, you have spun yourself around in circular talk to where you contradict yourself.

If the problem is really the owners (it is), then why focus resources anywhere other than the irresponsible owners? What possible good can come out of messing with good owners? As you've noted, the breeds of dogs that are the "choice" dogs for the rif raf has evolved over the years. Until we get to a point where we ban 50-70 breeds of dogs, the problem will not be solved. At some point, we HAVE to focus on the people who are causing the problems. It is truly the only way. Doing anything other than that is a complete waste of time and resources. The cities that have successfully minimized the problem have done just that -- focused on things like proper training/care of dogs, dealing with criminals as criminals, and not criminalizing people who are upstanding citizens of society. The case studies are out there -- we just need to duplicate them. Not duplicate what others who have failed around the world have done.


Hey Doug, How did your research in Florida go? We are still awaiting your groundbreaking results :>)


I didn't feel like reading through all of Doug's second-hand regurgitation of mythology, but his comment about the 'class of people' who own 'pit bulls' (whatever they are) caught my eye as I scrolled down to see if he had presented his results yet.

A year-long study in the US determined that the average bull-and-terrier owner is white, female, in her 30s or older, educated, owns her own house and is either self-employed or has an above-average occupation.

So, coud you explain your comment, please?

You DO know that the American Pit Bull terrier, one of the breeds twits call 'pit bulls', is the most popular registered purebred dog in the US, don't you Doug?

And then, of course, there are 2 - 4 other breeds non-dog people usually lump in under the 'pit bull' umbrella. And then there are all those mutts, which make up about 75% of the 72 million dogs in the US.

Facts are a real buzzkill, aren't they?



Thats why i have been off this blog for so long....still conducting my research. Did not want to influnence my data by being biased blogging on this site.

Did Karen do this year long study to or did you just guestimate the data because Rachel Rey has two pit bulls.


Ha ha ha it was done by My Dog Votes and was quite comprehensive.

Oddly, it completely matches 80% of the bull-and-terrier owners I've met in my life.

Go figure.


I mean Doug
Why don`t you cite some Facts,Science,Studies to support your opinions,beliefs instead of bashing people like Karen Delise?

I`m sure people are more than willing to read them.
Usually people that bash have nothing.

BTW are you given access to Autopsy reports and other information from Investigators?

I think she`s a bit more than just a pro pit person with a computer.

You might try reading her 2 books before calling them pro pit!

BTW why can`t on scene Investigators or anyone with actual facts post on your site?

Hope you will take the time to explain to children that they shouldn`t tease dogs and I would also deal with that dog that doesn`t like Black people.
I heard a rumor they`re here to stay.
How`s your dog with gay people?


[quote] go get yourself a good golden retriever and you can change your blog to a postive one.[/quote]

Careful when you choose that "good" Retrieverπ=6

The "good" ones will look just like the "bad" ones so maybe they should all be banned just in case.



I am not really bashing her, its just that she has an agenda at NCRC when it sounds like it should be neutral. And also it has the word research in its title, and yet it had a 1 page year end report which seems to have little to no research. And quite frankly anyone with a high school education can make most of the assuptions which is in the one page report. Do me a favor and actualy read the link I posted at the bottom of this rant and after Her statement of FUNCTION OF A DOG you don't get done reading it and say - No Sh!T - then you really are drinking the cool aide.

Then go on to read the rest of her statments and if you are not mad at her for wasting your time then you have drank too much cool aide.

Here is my 2007 year end report on Gun Deaths. By the way this was compiled with over 40 years of data.

Home owners with guns have a higher chance of dying by accidental shooting then home owners with no guns.

Children playing with guns had a higher chance of dying by accidental gun fire.

From 2005 - 2007 people who aimed guns at people and fired had a 90% chance of shooting someone and a higher chance of them dying of gun shot than of natural causes.

People shot multiple times pissed someone off.

People shot multiple times by multiple people really really pissed someone off.


You realy need to get out more and interact with people. You also may develop a sense of humor along the way.

Ok maybe I am bashing her, but I kind of have a point (Yes / No)....Come on Brent, I know you at least think I do. You put more effort into This Weeks round up then she did in her entire year end report.


As far as any study's go....I think only the people buying Dog Fancy or people whose dog's have their own blogs at "club dog" are responding to these study's and these just may be 30 year old white woman who are not properly socialized. (dam that's funny)

So your stats may be a little skewed due to your population sampling.

Now if you took a sample size of the pit bull population owners in the cities of Denver and Portland the year before BSL took place in Denver and posted the results. I would then consider this a good study of who owns what.

Seeing how the racial make up of these two cities is as follows:

Denver - Per Wiki

According to census estimates, the City and County of Denver contains approximately 566,974 people (2006) and 239,235 households (2000).

The racial make up of the city, as of 2007, is 50.71% White, 10.1% Black, 1.3% Native American, 3.6% Asian American, 0.12% Pacific Islander, 14.96% from other races, and 1.9% from two or more races. [35] 34.4% of the population is Hispanic or Latino of any race, giving Denver one of the highest populations of Hispanics or Latinos in the United States.[34] The Chinese ethnic group make up of the city area is approximately 3.4% with a population around 15,600. [36] 11.3% were of German, 7.2% Irish and 6.2% English ancestry according to Census 2000. 73.2% spoke English and 21.1% Spanish as their first language.

Portland - Per Wiki

As of 2000, there are 529,121 people residing in the city, organized into 223,737 households and 118,356 families. The population density is 3,939.2 people per square mile (1,521/km²).

The racial makeup of the city is 77.91% White, 6.64% African American, 6.33% Asian, 1.06% Native American, 0.38% Pacific Islander, 3.55% from other races, and 4.15% from two or more races. 6.81% of the population are Hispanic or Latino of any race. 15.3% were of German, 8.9% Irish and 8.8% English ancestry according to Census 2000. 83.3% spoke English, 5.6% Spanish, 2.0% Vietnamese and 1.3% Russian as their first language.
With such a large difference in minorities and English as a second language in Denver than Portland I think this would provide a back drop as to who actually owns what, this is also overlooked when Karen also compares these two cities. The crime rates are also different, there is also a 7 to 1 ratio of sex offenders in Dever compared to Portland.

Also just for giggles I looked at what I actually wrote here and not copied and pasted and the word count is actually a lot higher than the NCRC's year end report. I am really bashing her...but she kind of owns it....

I don't see how I can justify actualy reading any of her books after seeing the year end report. Based on her statments in the year end report I think the Book A MILLION LITTLE PIECES is based on more facts.


Doug, I have no idea what you are trying to say. Per usual.

It wasn't my study, btw but I saw the questionnaire and it was very detailed.

What this has to do with the price of beans is beyond me, ie, we can all Google demographics but it has no bearing on the results of the survey done by MDV.

My own experience is very similar to the survey results. Here in Ontario, for example, the majority of owners of ALL dogs are women, the majority of the people involved in fighting the Ontario law are women in their late 20s to early 70s, and virtually all members of the latter group are Caucasians.

About half of our group owns dogs which could be targeted as bull types - including Boxers, Bull and other Mastiffs, the 3 banned purebreds which are very rare and garden-variety mutts which happen to look like bull-and-terrier types to people who don't know much about dogs, such as yourself.

The other half of our group owns different kinds of dogs from tiny Toys to Irish Wolfhounds and everything in between - Border collies, Boston terriers, Australian Cattle dogs, Poodles, Dobermans, Pointers, and many other breeds and mixes.

Our membership includes veterinarians, lawyers, animal control officers, retail workers, dog trainers, dog sport participants, writers, artists, healthcare people, rich people, poor people, educated and uneducated people - it's a pretty good cross-section of Canadian society with the exception of a strong multi-culti representation, which is interesting and somewhat puzzling.

Generalizations are always a problem, aren't they? Right up there with semiattachment (a new term I learned about that is unbelievably apt in terms of 'our little problem').



I will say this for Karen's work. I'm pretty suspicious of a lot of research - -I assume most has bias. However, most of Karen's research is well done, and free of sample bias. She actually talks to a lot of the folks and makes the right connections.

I agree that the 2007 annual report is not her best work. However, the stuff in the two books is actually well researched and void of the sample bias that plagues so many studies. Is it perfect? Probably not. But it's better than most of the stuff out there. I think it might be in your best interest to actually READ the books before you cast judgment as to their value. It's funny that you criticize Karen's lack of depth in her analysis, and yet, have not been thorough enough to actually have read the books you criticize.



My point is it matters where and how you collect your samples from.

Ontario is 81% white with the next largest segment of society being Asians. People tend to gravitate towards their own groups and some cultures always stay within their own groups.

So no it does not suprise me that you are surounded by white women.

And no it does not suprise me that women responded to an on line survey.

Think about it....women from a very early age are conditioned to take surveys. You can't walk down the isle of a supermarket without see a magazine which says "Rate Which Johnas Brother is Hotter", "Who Do you Agree With Jen or Angelina", "What's the best way to please your man". I could go on an on but it is women who buy these mags.....and every single one of them has some type of survey, test or questionaire.

Guys will vote online for MVP of our sports teams and thats about it.

Guys do not take surveys or tests. We just don't care.... so for you to put any weight behind a very detailed questionaire, or your all white dog club is kind of pointless.

That's funny that you say I do not know much about dogs, when in fact, I have seen Brent post on numerous occasions that Vets can not even tell the difference in dogs without DNA testing.

So I guess your Dog knowledge is pretty strong....I'll bet you filled out a detailed questionare in Dog Fancy and got all the questions right......good for you......gooooood girl.

There are 36 more days left until the end of the there are 36 more chances for you to learn a new word.

Here are a few potentials:

Normal Distribution
Standard Deviation
Empirical Data

Please tell me what I generalized about.

Its tought having a battle of wits with an unarmed person.


It may be a good book, but you are right I based my opinion on the 2007 report. Which does not leave me with the warm and fuzzy feeling that I should go out and put forth and effort to read the book. I see that her eailer book is sold out. Which may be good if the publisher printed one million, but I do not that that is the case. Obviously she wrote about a very small subject, in a niche market so it was not going to have mass appeal in the first place, so I commend her for that, but that also leads to the potential to further an agenda.



Since we are on the subject data.....

In all the posts where it says that "since BSL was instituted, dog attacks have gone up 160%"

Can we not contribute more attention to the reporting of dog attacks due to all the publicity surounding BSL.

In all the times which i have been in and around dog attacks (one bite) none have been reported.

I think this would have been different if there was a very public BSL debate and then passed legislation in the places where I lived.

I can easily see more people dropping a dime on an offending dog during heightened times of awarness.

Similar to current ileagal aliens. 10 years ago when times where good no one cared about them. Now people are being run out of the country who have been here for years just because it is the hot thing to do. All because of all the media coverage. Since 2004 deportations have increased over 200%.



A couple of things on that:

1) We don't see the same types of increases in cities that talk about breed bans, but end up passing non-breed specific information. It would be reasonable to conclude that they, too, would have heightened awareness because of the conversations, but do not see the same types of bite increases

2) Many of the case studies (Sandusky, OH for instance) are bite numbers that are reported not by animal control, but by the state department of health, which HAS to report all bite cases that come into a hospital one way or the other. Because most people go to the hospital because the bite is either severe (or in some cases due to fear of rabies), these numbers should not be influenced by people's increased awareness.

3) It's funny, too, that you would take into account people's heightened awareness for overall dog bites, but not take into account the heightened awareness of "pit bulls" brought on by the media coverage -- which often leads to an increase of reporting of 'pit bull' bites and reported bites by pit bulls (even though the public is notoriously poorly equipped to make proper breed identifications).

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.


Post a comment

Your Information

(Name and email address are required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)