Tweet
As an advocate for pit bulls, I hate to see a wonderful breed savaged and abused by ill-informed, sick, backyard breeders and dogfighters, and demonized by cities and towns that whole-cloth ban any dog that looks like a bully breed in an attempt to stop the serious problem of loose, uncontrolled, aggressive canines.
My jaw hit the table when I read this story; it’s distressing to see brain-dead thinking (and IMHO illegal) behavior displayed by the Aurelia City Council in Iowa. It not only passed ludicrous breed-specific legislation (it’s the deed, not the breed – the owners are the problem) , it took away a trained service dog from a retired cop — a disabled Vietnam veteran – just because “Snickers” is a pit mix. Fran Spielman of the Chicago Sun-Times:
For 32 years, nearly half as a tactical officer, Jim Sak was a cop chasing down bad guys on the streets of Chicago.
Now that he’s retired and living in tiny Aurelia, Ia., the townsfolk are chasing him — to get rid of “Snickers,” a five-year-old Pit bull-mix service dog he needs after suffering a debilitating stroke that left him with no feeling on the right side of his body.
On orders from the Aurelia City Council, a heartbroken Sak has shipped his beloved protector off to a kennel just outside of the Iowa town where he moved last month to be closer to his ailing, 87-year-old mother-in-law. If he hadn’t gotten rid of Snickers, city fathers had threatened to seize and destroy the dog.
…“I have spasms on my right side where the leg gives out whenever I get upset or try to do too much. When Snickers sees that my hand is moving, he sits down by me right away and waits for me to tell him what to do. Usually, he goes to get my wife so she can help me get back in the chair. Without him, I feel lost.”
Common sense went out the window — the city council voted 3 to 2 to make no exceptions for a service dog that happens to be a pit mix. This ordinance has now set up a legal showdown over local breed-specific bans and the rights of Jim Sak under the federal Americans for Disabilities Act (ADA). In my opinion, he has a right to own a service dog, regardless of the breed.
…George Wittgraf, an attorney representing the Iowa town, said Aurelia is “simply exercising its authority to protect and preserve the rights and property of its residents — whether or not that’s trumped by” federal law.
We’re talking about a dog that has successfully passed training to assist the disabled — this is not some aggressive stray, untrained dog. The city council apparently wants to engage in what I predict will be an embarrassing, costly lawsuit that has no basis in fact related to a specific breed. What it will do, is probably undermine the existence of breed-specific bans when it comes to service animals, and perhaps breed bans altogether if the decision is evidence-based, something I have blogged about many times.
More below the fold.
Take a look at the statistics for more meaningful, reality-based information – CDC statistics. This shows breeds of dogs involved in human dog bite-related fatalities (DBRF) in the United States, by 2-year period, between 1979 an 1998. Death-based approach of counting most frequent purebreds and crossbreds involved in 7 or more human DBRF.
Going by this chart, yes, pit bulls are at the top of fatal dog bites, not all dog bites. What is true is that more attacks on humans that are fatal are due to pit bull and Rottweiler attacks (Rotties have more bite power because of their huge heads and size). No one calls for Rottweilers to be banned. And if you look at the mixed breeds, pit mixes pose no more significant threat than other mixes — should those all be banned as well; after all, visual appearance alone doesn’t indicate behavior.
Also, the vast majority of biting dogs (77%) belong to the victim’s family or a friend. Another studyconfirms the obvious to people with experience with dogs – the dogs most likely to bite and kill (and this cuts across all breeds) are male, unneutered, and chained. That’s also a dog that has not been socialized, trained and is a time bomb, not a family pet. Those are much better predictors of behavior than breed alone.
2 Comments
Common sense & rational thought are rare commodities in the general population, & seem practically non-existent among law-makers, at whatever level of government. Doesn’t matter if it’s LGBT humans or pit bull dogs.
“We don’t need no stinkin’ science/evidence/brains.” This attitude would be funny if the consequences for innocent beings weren’t so severe.
What kind of person destroys the bond between a person and their beloved pet, and simultaneously steals from a disabled person an important coping mechanism (perhaps their most important)?
Reminds me of the multiple “wheelchair dumping” stories which hit the news in an oddly-timed cluster, approximately three years ago.
BTW there’s an essential book by Mary Johnson, called Make them Go Away: The Case Against Disability Rights. Johnson’s primary thesis: our society insists discrimination against the disabled almost never occurs. “Everyone knows” there’s no hatred or resentment toward that group.
The title may seem misleading. Though Johnson is pro-diability-rights, she must first make the case against those rights. Because most people’s initial reaction will be something like this:
“What? We do so much for crippled folks; how can they possibly complain?” You know, like giving them their own special places.
To live. Where “normal” people won’t have to be made uncomfortable by the sight of them.
Another word for being treated in such a special way? “Segregation.”
The signs of hostility to the disabled are unmistakable: that is, if you happen to be disabled yourself.
In my city the transit agency often touts its extensive and expensive accomodations for disabled riders. And let’s be fair: they do try.
Better than the public areas which can be entered only by walking up a steep flight of stairs. Oh but they’re not inaccessible. You can go there.
Well you have to phone ahead of time and make arrangements. Then endure the visible humiliation of being “assisted” to enter (i.e. bodily lifted and carried). Like a parcel, an object.
Whereas bus drivers are always prepared to make use of the lift, and help secure the disabled rider’s mobility device if necessary.
Meanwhile, you can hear groaning and muttering throughout the bus: the sound of able-bodied riders’ barely-concealed resentment about their inconvenience.
But let’s suppose you’re neither blind, deaf nor in a wheelchair. Yet you are disabled and require help.
In that instance? Many drivers’ attitude is: you’re a lazy SOB trying to pull some kind of scam, hoping to get something you don’t deserve.
I’m barely scratching the surface. Though Johnson’s
book was helpful to a neophyte like myself, her ideas will be familiar to anyone knowledgeable about disability rights.
For disabled and for LGBT citizens: despite facing our unique challenges, still we have something in common. An uphill battle, made more difficult (in part) because of the widespread belief that discrimination simply does not happen. Or is extremely rare.