This is absolutely unbelievable. I'm no fan of Pit Bulls, but I'm also no fan of Denver's new law:

http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/news...3768197,00.html

May 11, 2005
It has to be one of the dumbest laws, ever. And I don't even own or like pit bulls. It's nothing personal, only that I'd never keep any animal that eats as much or more than I do.

Still, I can weep for the pit bulls of Denver, particularly for the puppies that never did anything other than get born into the breed.

Yet here we have the city of Denver, newly sprung from legislative and judicial restraint, rounding up pits over the past couple of days and killing them like rats during The Plague.

A uniformed officer arrives at a home. "I'll get him," she announces to her partner. Rather than fight it all, a distraught man emerges, weighs going to jail and a fine, and in the end hands over his dog.

"I'm definitely sad," he later tells a reporter. "He's like a member of my family."

Later in the day, a woman pleads: "I don't have no dogs!

"There ain't no dogs in the basement!" she yells as the uniformed man and woman, responding to an informant's report of a pit bull, interrogate her. Outside, squad cars filled with police officers wait to see if they are needed.

"I'm just doing my job," the woman officer later laments.

It has been eight years since I last had a dog, God rest him. And the one thing I truly know is I would have never given him over to the dogcatcher to be killed simply because he was a beagle.

I would hardly care if a judge in the city where I lived said it was the rule and the law. Yet this has been happening since Monday in Denver, when a state law prohibiting bans of "breed-specific" dogs was overturned and the city's moratorium on pit bull confiscation and killing was lifted.

And no one much is saying a thing.

It is why we need to speak with William Suro. He is a veterinarian of 45 years, who in 1988 started the MaxFund, a nonprofit that provides medical care for injured animals with no known owners, which seeks new homes for them.

It is a shelter that has never killed a single dog.

Bill Suro, 69, for years has wrangled with Denver in the courts of legal and public opinion over the ban, passed in the wake of the pit bull killing of a young child.

"Unfair. Stupid," Bill Suro says of this week's roundup. "It remains an emotional response to a terrible thing that happened, but one that doesn't really help those hurt or killed by vicious dogs."

Bill Suro is a blunt-spoken and uncompromising defender of animals, and a man who believes in harsh punishment for those who abuse and kill them.

He has in recent hours counseled numerous terrier owners, given the shock of their lives simply because their pets resemble pits and were threatened with euthanasia. Denver animal control authorities acknowledge receiving and being sent on numerous "could be a pit bull" calls.

"It makes me and every animal lover and organization across this country just sick," he said. "It's crazy."

He and his wife, Nanci, over the past few months have emptied MaxFund of every pit bull they once housed, shipping them to like-minded shelters outside of Denver.

He puts the number at close to 20 pit bulls. Some owners, too, have come to MaxFund, only to be turned away. He and Nanci, he said, have done all they could.

"We would absolutely love to be the Underground Railroad for pit bulls, but we know the city would close us down."

Yes, I tell him, but aren't pit bulls actually the human flesh-ripping monsters they are portrayed to be?

Bill Suro snickers at my naivete.

"I've been a veterinarian for 45 years, and I've never once been attacked or bitten by a pit bull. There are other breeds where I have gone into an examination room and really been on my guard. I will not tell you which, but they scare me."

Cities like Denver, he says, whip up pit bull hysteria. And that is all it is, he said. People now all believe every pit bull "is a coiled and snarling attacker. It's nonsense."

Cities, he said, would be much better served if they took a simple look at canine attacks from recent years.

"Eighty percent all fatal attacks in the U.S. are caused by male dogs. I guess, given this, it would be prudent to now ban all breeds of male dogs."

Denver, he said, does not at the same time send dogcatchers to cite owners of non-neutered dogs,

"It should know there have been fatal attacks in the U.S. by Pomeranians, that half a dozen attacks that caused death or serious injuries were by cocker spaniels."

And then he raises an issue I had not contemplated, and which I do not lend much credence to. But I will give him his say because it matches what has happened the last two days in the city:

"There appears a racial end of this," Bill Suro says.

"Look at the dogs that have been impounded, and the surnames of their owners. . . . They aren't killing dogs from Cherry Creek. They pick on the easiest people to pick on, the ones who give up easiest," he said, adding that he has forwarded this claim to the American Civil Liberties Union.

What happens, I ask, when all of the Denver pit bulls have been rounded up and put down?

He would not want to be a Malamute, he said.

A male Malamute attacked and killed a 7-year-old girl in Fruita last Saturday night.

"It is not the breed," an unsmiling Bill Suro said.

Bill Johnson's column appears Wednesday, Friday and Saturday.

That's just sickening. It's not the breed, it's the upbringing! Just like GMan said on the cat thread, it's stupid pet owners.

Underground railroad. I love it. Count me in!

Is this for real??????

I have no problem with putting down a dog that has been proven dangerous or even just overly aggressive (given the potential for harm to humans). But to round up all of a certain breed and euthanize them?

Are they going to round up my lab because he farts too much?

Eww.

Dang it, Heather. I was going to edit out that part, so as not to make a joke about a sad situation. Now you've gone and memorialized it with a quote.

You can delete my quote. I don't mind.

I can't believe a law like that could be passed...it's ridiculous!

My sister lives in the Cherry Creek area that they mention. It's a very wealthy suburb of Denver. I'll have to get her opinion on all of this.

It would be interesting to see what the local Denverites are saying about this, Naomi.

I just e-mailed her, so I'll let you know when she replies.

Total BS.

That's so sad, it makes me want to cry. I couldn't imagine having someone knock on my door, just to take any of my pets away. Imagine someone doing that to your children, because that's what it is like for many pet owners. I would probably get arrested over it, because it would be too heartbreaking. God, that's terrible!

My friend, who lives in Philadelphia, was walking to work one day and found a stray pit bull roaming the street. So he managed to lead the dog to the shelter, where he was told that there's no way anyone would adopt the dog, since it's a pitbull, and therefore, it would be euthanized. A perfectly good dog, euthanized because of its bad reputation. So, being the great guy that he is, he led the dog home to his rented house, where no pets are allowed. He negotiated with the landlord, and by offering to increase his rent by $35/month, he was allowed to keep the dog, now known as Lea. I've met her, and she's one of the sweetest dogs I've known. She's not the only pitbull I know either, the other one - female - is also very well behaved and excellent around children. It's a shame that people's ignorance to this breed, is resulting in perfectly good, well-behaved dogs, being euthanized. I did not hear of this story until I read it on this board, and I don't understand why there hasn't been more coverage.

Maybe someone should send this article to those batards in Denver.

USA Today


Chows, from what I've heard, are pretty nasty dogs as well, but no one seems to be ready to rip them from households. I'd be interested in seeing the stats on the number of people who have been mauled by chows. I bet it's pretty high.

I've heard that about Chows too. German Shepherds, Dobermans, Rottweilers... Seems they have a new posterdog for violent pets every couple of years.

My brother had a string of Shar-peis. They were great dogs, but I would never have considered walking into his back yard unless he was with me. And he didn't "teach" them to be that way, either.

I've been around a couple of pit bulls that weren't mean, and I've been around a couple of rotties that weren't mean, but I don't feel comfortable around either of them.

My grandma had a little black chihuahua that bit the gas man every time he came to read the meter.

What I don't get is why are we blaming the *dogs*?

Let's say that some breeds are more prone to violence... and frankly, I think some are. Different breeds have different histories.... my dog's ancestors were bred to be ratters and watchdogs, and he chases bunnies like crazy and barks at anyone who comes within 5 feet of our fence. I didn't teach him this... it's part of who he is.

Maybe pits and rotties and dobies and shepherds and shar-peis do have a tendency to bite first, bark later.

But the real problem is the dog owner who doesn't act responsibly by keeping their dog under control (and by that I mean on a leash or in a fenced yard--NOT just assuming their dog will come when called) at all times.

My dog has, actually, bitten a neighbor--because she stuck her fingers through our fence! We have a sign that clearly says "Beware of dog." (She was nice about it.) I would never chastise my dog for doing this. His job is to be a watchdog! He was just fulfilling his role.

But anytime he is outside of our securely fenced yard, he is always on a leash. No exceptions. It's for his safety and it's the law.

I wouldn't have as much of a problem if they rounded up dogs that weren't kept on leash, were roaming the neighborhood freely, or were escaping from their fence (in which case the owner needs to find a better way to confine their dog)--though I hope they wouldn't euthanize these dogs... just hand them over to the shelter.

But to kill a dog just because it's a certain breed? Total BS.

I heard back from my sister and she more or less said that since she doesn't live in Denver and doesn't own a pit bull, she doesn't care either way. Just one person's opinion. She did say however that she has a friend that also lives in Cherry Creek who owns a pit named Meat. He's a really nice dog and has acted in some Animal Planet shows. So I pointed out to her that wouldn't she be upset if they enforced that law in Cherry Creek and took Meat away? I'll see what she says to that!

TB asked a pretty good question that no one has addressed:

"The ban was in effect for 15 years and has been in litigation for only the past year. What were these good law biding citizens doing with a pit bull in the house? They all ran out to buy a pit bull in May 2004? Um...okay...sure."

We can debate the law, and whether it makes sense, is constitutional, etc. but the fact is these people bought/harbored a dog they knew (or should have known) to be illegal and they knew the penalty. Suddenly I don't feel so sorry for the people.

Well, I guess you can argue that everyone should know every law... and ignorance isn't a defense... but I am certain there are plenty of smaller laws--local, county, state--of which I am competely unaware.

I mean... did they send out notices to everyone with a registered/licensed pit bull? Did they alert new pit bull owners who were licensing their dog that pit bulls were outlawed? In that case, these folks had plenty of time to decide how to handle the situation. But I have a feeling that's not how the situation was handled.

Were pit bulls still being sold in Denver pet stores? Were they still permitted for sale in the city newspaper?

Sure... ignorance isn't an excuse... but it might explain why so many folks still had their dogs and still lived in city limits.

"...officially illegal again" seems to imply that at some point recently pit bulls were legal.

Good gravy what a day! I agree with a post by Idiot and TB in the same day! Maybe I'll buy a lotto ticket today...

It's the end of days.

<shrug> Are the owners to blame? Of course. I don't think anyone is going to argue that. Bad owners and bad breeders are the reason the breed has such a bad reputation in the first place.

Irresponsible owners = mean, loose dogs that bite.

There will always be irresponsible dog owners who own all types of breeds.

So why aren't we punishing the owners instead of the dogs?

My point is that sometimes it isn't as simple as folks just ignoring the law: some people aren't aware of these types of laws, not all of us read the paper or watch the news (myself included). Some probably didn't even realize their dogs were in danger. Didn't I read that it wasn't just pits they were rounding up... but also any type of similar (like American Staffordshire Terriers)? If someone told me they were going to outlaw American Pit Bulls, but I owned an American Staffordshire Terrier, I probably wouldn't worry about it.

True, but laws very often get formulated based on the need of a community. Denver didn't just decide to go after one breed out of thin air. It came about because of an attack. An attack that rattled the citizens so much they decided to ban an entire breed. Apparently, the courts say they can put such a ban in place.

Dogs with irresponsible owners are punished because their aren't enough responsible owners to go around. A dog's life is lucky or unlucky. A dog can get a responsilbe owner, an irresposible owner or worse, no owner at all.

Do we know that owners aren't being fined? But then someone will declare that just losing their pet is punishment enough? I'm pretty sure Denver destroys* more dogs than just pit bulls. Those other dogs may make fine pets but just get homes. If pit bulls are illegal and the dog is confiscated offer the owner another bred from the pound, or is it more about what the owner wants and not about providing a home for another dog?

As for the specifics about the breed, it was in some of the articles I saw but maybe not it the ones I chose to post.

-------
*We don't use the word destroy that much anymore. Maybe we should so folks realize the consequences of letting a dog down when it comes to being an onwer.

edited so I could sign it - trueblue

Right. But I am guessing that this is not the only dog attack to ever happen in their city. Had a golden retriever been responsible for this attack, do you think they'd be rounding up all the golden retrievers (and chesapeake bay retrievers and every other retriever-looking dog) to destroy/kill them all? I doubt it. This attack "rattled" the citizens because of the breed.



Of course. Even in Washington County we destroy/kill hundreds of dogs every year. But we're not knocking on people's doors and taking away their beloved pets.

In the end, the city of Denver is unnecessarily destroying these animals. Breed-specific legislation won't solve dog attack problems. The problem is the owner, not the dog.

But would you be asking that all chihuahuas be gathered up and destroyed? Even the ones that have never demonstrated any type of violent or vicious behavior?



Of course, we can't say for sure. But I doubt it. I suspect in that case all fingers would be pointing straight at the owner--where they should be in this case.



So which is it? Large breeds or smaller dogs that are the problem? It's not the dog--the size or the breed--that's the problem. It's the owner.



I agree completely with this.

Training for new dog owners, stricter enforcement of leash and containment laws, harsher penalities for pet owners who don't obey laws, more stringent screening of pet adopters... these are things that will help limit dog attacks.

I just don't see how rounding up a bunch of innocent dogs is going to help.

I think I already stated that--unless the city of Denver sent out notices to everyone who had a licensed pit bull, American Staffordshire Terrier, and all the other breeds that would be rounded up--it's more than likely plenty of folks didn't even know about the law.

I also think I already stated that people with breeds like American Staffordshire Terriers may NOT HAVE REALIZED that their dog was in danger, since most of the news articles just say "pit bulls."

I doubt this. Merely conjecture on your part.



You haven't given any reasonable answer for how this breed-specification legistature will help reduce dog attacks. Because large dog owners will now be more aware? I thought small dogs could bite, too.

The problem is not people like me, who don't believe in blaming the innocent.

The problem is people who let the guilty (irresponsible dog owners) get away with it, while punishing the innocent (friendly, loving dogs).

If there was an ethnic race where 5% of that population regularly engaged in violent, vicious crimes against people... would you agree that the city should ban people of that race?

I realize that you--and most folks--don't put people and animals on the same level. And that's reasonable.

But while my example may seem extreme, the basic premise is the same: punishing all the "innocent" because of a few "guilty."

<shrug> Whatever. We can agree to disagree here, because I ain't gonna change my mind, and I doubt I'll change yours. Besides... I have work to go do or my boss is going to yell at me.

I understand what you're saying.

However, pit bulls don't come into Denver of their free will. So being kept out of Denver isn't in and of itself a punishmnet for the dog. It may be viewed as a punishment to someone in Denver who wants to own a pit bull. The problem arises when an owner decides to ignore the law and bring a pit bull into the banned city. Yes, the dog ends up the loser.

I don't know how many pit bulls were brought into Denver in the year that the law was being contested. Let's hope not very many and hope that owners do something to provide for their dogs before the city does.

Even if the city issued a citation and gave owners six months to find a new home for the dog some folks just wouldn't do it. I guess they want to protest the law at the expense of their pets.

I actually experienced this when an "incident" happened with one of my dogs. Unbeknownst to me, any dog in Washington County has to be registered, which I was completely unaware of. Does that make me an irresponsible pet owner? Because I didn't research all the state, local, county laws before owning a pet? I don't know, but when I get a pet, I don't think about those things. I think about how great it is that another pet will have a loving, caring home where it will be well-fed, loved, and protected. All the while, I will respect my neighbors and others by keeping my pet on a leash, or confined to my yard. This will be another pet who will avoid euthanization.

Trueblue, I get the feeling that due to a bad experience, you think it's ok to euthanize a certain breed of dog in Denver. Maybe I'm making assumptions, I don't know, but I can't help but wonder if you had never been bit by a dog, if you'd still feel it's ok to go ahead and euthanize them - simply for being a certain breed of dog. It's just wrong, in my opinion.

Peacefrog - I agree with you 100%. I blame the owners, not the dogs. It's not right that a few bad apples have ruined the whole bunch.

No, my experience of being bitten was only to illustrate that if a small dog bite can hurt than a large dog bite is no doubt very scary. I wasn't bitten by a stray.

My attitude toward euthanizing a dog is that there are never enough homes and dogs do get destroyed because of that circumstance. Good, healthy dogs of all breeds so if a law banning them is enforced and that enforcement includes destroying them I see it as part of that unfortunate cycle of humans viewing dogs as disposable. Large cities don't have the space or commitment or money to find homes for all their legal animals. I also understand when you live in an area where people are very close together that you also have less ability to do things on a case by case basis. Eventually more large breeds may be banned for all sorts of reasons (i.e. they produce twice as much poop to step in) just because it is easier to enforce. I'm not advocating such bans but if Denver has such a ban than you can abide by it or attempt to change it but not just ignore it.

I just assume that every dog needs to be registered or licensed with shots wherever you live but that may be a part of my urban background.

edited fo sign my name - trueblue
Why does this section let you be a guest but others remind you to sign in? *sigh*

Aurora Considers Banning Pit Bulls

Finally! A solution for pet owners who have a "dangerous" breed.

http://www.attackchi.org.au/kits.htm

That is so awesome! My friend has a mastiff that's a big baby. I sent him the link so he can order the Old English Sheepdog disguise

I love it, peacefrog!