Home
Latest Events
Latest Events
| Sat, May 10th, @12:00pm - 03:00PM Adoption Event |
| Letter to the Editor |
|
|
|
|
Copy of Featured Letter Printed in Chicago Sun-Times January 16, 2004 To The Editors: Alderman Ginger Rugai of the 19th Ward is probably well-intentioned in her desire to pass an ordinance banning "Pit Bulls" in the City of Chicago. Unfortunately, she also appears to be spectacularly ill-informed, and to have given little or no constructive thought to the problem she purports to be addressing. First, she asks rhetorically if "any other particular breed has 'in fact' killed or maimed anyone?" Well, "in fact", since 1975, the following breeds have been involved in one or more fatal attacks on human beings: Akita, Australian Shepherd, Boxer, Bulldog, Bullmastiff, Chesapeake Bay Retriever, Chow Chow, Cocker Spaniel, Collie, Coonhound, Dachshund, Doberman, Golden Retriever, Great Dane, Husky, Labrador Retriever, Lhasa Apso, Malamute, Mastiff, Mixed Breed (with no recognizable dominant breed), Newfoundland, "Pit Bull" type, Pomeranian, Rhodesian Ridgeback, Rottweiler, German Shepherd, Saint Bernard, Sheepdog, West Highland White Terrier, Wolf/Dog Hybrid, Yorkshire Terrier. It's clear that the so-called "Pit Bulls" (not even an actual, definable, single breed) have no monopoly on aggression to humans. Does the Alderman propose to ban, say, Collies and Golden Retrievers, based on their participation in fatal attacks? The above list represents roughly 20 % of the breeds recognized by the American Kennel Club, and includes many of the most popular breeds. Based on Alderman Rugai's logic, all of these breeds would have to be banned. Second, any dog is potentially aggressive, both to other dogs and to humans. Overall bite statistics by breed place both Labradors and Golden Retrievers in the top five for bite incident frequency, yet most people perceive those breeds as being among the most gentle and non-aggressive. In fact, many veterinarians and others who work closely with dogs will tell you that many of the smaller breeds, like the Dachshund and the Pomeranian, are far more likely to bite than Rottweilers or Pit Bulls. Third, there is far more variability between individual members of the dog population than between each specific breed. I've known tough-looking, well-muscled "Pit Bulls" that were among the most gentle, loving dogs you could imagine, and cute furry Yorkshire Terriers that I wouldn't trust an inch. Indeed, if "Pit Bulls" as a breed are so innately vicious and aggressive, why is it news when one attacks? Why is it that in those rare instances when Pit Bulls do injure humans, the dogs in question almost never have any previous history of ferocious behavior? If the myth of Pit Bull ferocity were true, wouldn't we see hundreds or even thousands of incidents each year? In fact, the vast majority of "Pits" are good citizens, just like the vast majority of their counterparts in other breeds. The crux of the matter is that this issue is not really a question of canine misbehavior, nor has it ever been. The issue here is Human misbehavior. Pit Bulls are powerful dogs, and can be dangerous, just as any dog can be under the wrong circumstances. It is the responsibility of their human masters to properly supervise and care for them. This includes choosing a dog that you can handle, proper socialization, spay/neutering at the earliest possible time, consistent training, and maybe most importantly, close supervision and physical control of the dog. Indeed, it is worth noting that unrestrained dogs account for 82% of all bite incidents, and nearly 100% of fatalities. Cast your mind back to the tragic events of early last year, when the Dan Ryan Woods attacks made headlines. One very important point was mentioned in several reports, but did not receive the attention that we believe it deserved. Witnesses commented on the fact that the dogs in question, while apparently living in the Forest Preserve, appeared well-fed and well cared-for; it was clear that these dogs belonged to someone. Yet they were unrestrained and unsupervised, and unfortunately potentially dangerous. The most probable explanation for their odd living arrangements? These dogs were not kept in the home of their owner simply because they existed for the purpose of dog fighting, a barbaric and illegal ritual that some police officers will tell you is practiced in literally every ward in the City of Chicago. It is an activity practiced by members of the underworld, including street gangs, and the events are magnets for illegal gambling, for the sale and use of illegal drugs, and for other forms of criminal behavior. The dogs involved in the Dan Ryan Woods mauling were almost certainly bred and raised to participate in these illegal events. At the very least, their owners (who have never been found), failed in their responsibility to the community at large, and to their animals, with tragic results. If Alderman Rugai is anxious to propose new ordinances, perhaps she should consider an ordinance directing the Chicago Police Department to more aggressively enforce existing dog fighting statutes, or maybe the City Council should toughen-up existing leash laws and provide the Department with sufficient resources to implement meaningful enforcement strategies. These types of measures would almost certainly be many times more effective than enacting an emotionally charged, poorly written, and ill-conceived ordinance that not only infringes needlessly on personal freedom with no factual justification, but which will ultimately fail to have any effect whatsoever on the root problem: Dog owners who are irresponsible at best, and criminal at worst. Sincerely, Elizabeth Curran, President Jim Borgelt For The Board of Directors Lake Shore Animal Shelter, Inc. Did you enjoy this article? Please bookmark it onto:               |
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|
Donate to Lake Shore
Syndicate
