While we here at Today in Fort Smith recognize the passion and depth of emotion of individuals who recklessly own, breed and champion the pit bull breed, the harassment, anonymous attacks and even death threats we have endured in the past week does nothing to change the facts of the dangers said animals present to society.
This chapter started about two weeks ago when we detailed the attack of a child in Washington County by a pit bull that resulted in the mauling of the toddler.
The bottom line? We posted a cautionary warning for people not to comment on the story with excuses and/or defense of the breed and we were immediately hit with a blitzkrieg of exactly that.
-"It's not the breed, it's the way they are raised."
-"We have had Fluffy for three years and he's just a big baby that wouldn't hurt a fly!"
-"I wonder what the little brat kid did to provoke that poor puppy?"
I ended up banning nine people but then I wrote a column laying out all the facts about the dangers of pit bulls--and the attacks continued.
But something else happened as well. We started getting encouraging messages from across the county congratulating us and championing our efforts.
One of the people who contacted us was a doctor with the Wisconsin Children's Hospital and she has linked us to others across the nation that specialize in and research dog bite statistics and fatalities across the country.
The good doctor pointed out a couple of things and since I tend to take my medical advice from those with degrees instead of meth labs. I concur.
Myth #1: It's the owner not the breed
The outdated debate, "It's the owner, not the breed," has caused the pit bull problem to grow into a 35-year old problem.
Designed to protect pit bull breeders and owners, the slogan ignores the genetic history of the breed and blames these horrific maulings -- inflicted by the pit bull's genetic "hold and shake" bite style -- on environmental factors. While environment plays a role in a pit bull's behavior, it is genetics that leaves pit bull victims with permanent and disfiguring injuries.
The pit bull's genetic traits are not in dispute. Many appellate courts agree that pit bulls pose a significant danger to society and can be regulated accordingly.
Some of the genetic traits courts have identified include: unpredictability of aggression, tenacity ("gameness" the refusal to give up a fight), high pain tolerance and the pit bull's "hold and shake" bite style.
According to forensic medical studies, similar injuries have only been found elsewhere on victims of shark attacks.
Purveyors of this myth also cannot account for the many instances in which pit bull owners and their family members are victimized by their pet dogs. From 2005 to 2017, pit bulls killed 284 Americans, about one citizen every 17 days.
Of these deaths, 53% involved a family member and a household pit bull.
Notably, in the first 8 months of 2011, nearly half of those killed by a pit bull was its owner. One victim was an "avid supporter" of Bad Rap, a recipient of Michael Vick's dogs.
Myth #2: It's impossible to identify a pit bull
Pit bull advocates frequently claim that the average person cannot correctly identify a pit bull. The pit bull is a class of dogs made up of several close dog breeds and his false claim is designed to confuse the public just like the breed's history of changing names is intended to do
According to a top U.S. animal control enforcement officer, "If it looks like a pit bull, it usually is."
Pit bull advocates have even created deceptive online tests to further confuse the media, policymakers and the public. These tests are inaccurate and intentionally crafted to show that the average person cannot correctly identify a pit bull.
DogsBite.org has created a more realistic test that shows a variety of popular dog breeds. Once one begins to understand the frame, posture and distinct head shape and jaw size of a pit bull, identification is immediate.
Myth #3: Human-aggressive pit bulls were "culled"
Historically, it is believed that dogfighters removed human-aggressive pit bulls from the gene pool. "Man biters," as dogmen referred them, were "culled" to prevent dog handlers from suffering vicious bites.
However, dogmen themselves and pedigrees show a different story. As far back as 1909, George Armitage shares a story in, "Thirty Years with Fighting Dogs." He describes Caire's Rowdy as not a mere man-biter, but as a "man-eater," the most dangerous biter of all.
In more modern years, a substantial number of champion (CH), grand champion (GR CH) and register of merit (ROM) fighting dogs carry the title of a man-biter or a man-eater.
These pit bulls were championship-breeding stock, whose famed owners never for a moment considered culling the dogs.
Some of the most well known dogs include: Adams' GR CH Zebo, Indian Bolio ROM, Garner's CH Chinaman ROM, Gambler's GR CH Virgil and West's CH Spade (man-eater).
In 1974, after a series of high profile news articles written by Wayne King and published by the New York Times, the image of the ferocious fighting pit bull moved from the shadowy world of dogmen into the mainstream.
This period, between 1975 and 1979, is known as the "leakage period" when the breeding of pit bulls drastically increased through gang members and drug dealers, who wanted the "toughest dog" on the block, as well as by pet pit bull breeders.
While some dogmen of the past may have culled human-aggressive dogs to keep their stock free of man-biters, once the leakage period began, there is no evidence that similar selective pressures were maintained.
As early as 1980, pit bull attacks begin headlining newspapers, "Another Pit Bull Attack Reported; Boy, 8 Slashed (1980)," as well as reports of pit bull owners trying to bolster the breed's "deteriorating" public image, "Pit Bull Attacks As Owners Fight Image (1980)."
Myth #4: Fatal attack statistics about pit bulls are false
Pro-pit bull groups argue that the 20-year fatal dog attack study (from 1979 to 1998) issued by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in September 2000 is inaccurate because the study relied "in part" on newspaper articles.
Pit bull advocates say that pit bull fatalities are more extensively reported by the media, therefore the authors of the study (most holding PhD credentials) must have "miscounted" or "double counted" the number of pit bull fatalities.
As stated in the CDC report, the authors collected data from media accounts and the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) registry of fatal dog attacks.
Also, all five authors, Jeffrey Sacks, Leslie Sinclair, Julie Gilchrist, Gail Golab and Randall Lockwood, openly oppose breed-specific legislation. This bias is clearly reflected in the CDC report.
If discrepancies were made in the report, it seems more likely that fatal pit bull attacks were underreported not over reported.
Myth #6: Pit bulls are not unpredictable
Despite pro-pit bull claims that pit bulls are not unpredictable, the breed frequently attacks without provocation or warning. It is well documented by humane groups that to excel in dogfighting, pit bulls were selectively bred to conceal warning signals prior to an attack.
For instance, a pit bull may not growl, bare its teeth or offer a direct stare before it strikes. Unlike all other dog breeds, pit bulls (fighting dogs) are also disrespectful of traditional signs of submission and appeasement.
According to expert Randall Lockwood, pit bulls are also liars. In a 2004 law enforcement training video, taped when Lockwood was vice president for research and educational outreach for the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), he shares the following story:
"Fighting dogs lie all the time. I experienced it first hand when I was investigating three pit bulls that killed a little boy in Georgia. When I went up to do an initial evaluation of the dog's behavior, the dog came up to the front of the fence, gave me a nice little tail wag and a "play bow" -- a little solicitation, a little greeting. As I got closer, he lunged for my face."
If a pit bull can fool an expert such as Lockwood, how can the average citizen anticipate a pit bull's future action?
In a separate example, animal behavioral expert Peter Borchelt was sued after the pit bull he was training for a client "suddenly" attacked an ex-fireman.
After encountering Gabriel Febbraio on the street and assuring him that the pit bull was friendly, the dog broke free from Borchelt and attacked Febbraio in the groin. The jury awarded Febbraio $1 million dollars.
So there, once again, you have it. Truth. Facts. Research. Not some idiotic, self-indulgent excuse designed to make you feel better about owning a ticking time bomb.
Look. Its'a free country. Under the present law, if you want to own one of these gargoyles, that's up to you. Personally, I think if you have kids and subject them to the dangers of being in a household with a pit bull, you should be visited by DHS. If your dog attacks and kills someones pet or maims another person. you should be held accountable and your dog put down.
If an an attack from your dog results in the death of a human being then you should be charged as an accessory to murder.
I'm sure there are exceptions to the "pit bull' mindset. Just as if all of them may not be "man-eaters" everyone that owns one is not a meth cooking, neck tattoo-wearing, 20-inch rim riding, piece of scum. But man-eaters are out there and so are their "stereotyped" owners.
I'll leave you with this. One slack-jawed pit-nutter has been burning up my inbox for a week. This morning she sent me a PM denouncing the fact that the parents of the child hurt in the northwest Arkansas had the nerve to to attend a concert last night.
"This shows how much they care for their child. It's been 2 weeks since the pitbull attack and they are at the concert. Where are there kids? And how much of that came out of donations?"
My reply?
"So.... because their child was attacked and permanently disfigured by a monster they are supposed to stay home the rest of their lives and never do anything again? The person that owned that piece of s*** dog ought to have to pay them $1 million on top of their medical expenses. You, ma'am, are ignorant."
I rest my case, stalker.
-