The bigger picture – July 8, 2008

11 Responses to The bigger picture – July 8, 2008

1. j says:

   July 8, 2008 at 5:23 pm

   You stole Robert T. Nelson’s next column idea.

   [Reply]
2. neal says:

   July 8, 2008 at 7:13 pm

   I’m not sure if you’re complimenting the cartoon, criticizing it, or neither.

   [Reply]
3. Mike Honcho says:

   July 9, 2008 at 7:24 am

   Neal,

   Just out of curiosity, where do you stand on the issue of banning pit bulls and/or other ‘dangerous’ dog breeds?

   [Reply]
4. neal says:

   July 10, 2008 at 6:34 pm

   Oh I’m absolutely for banning pit bulls and other killer dogs. I suppose if one wants to classify them as a weapon instead of a pet, maybe they can claim the 2nd Amendment protects their right to own one.

   [Reply]
5. Mike Honcho says:

   July 11, 2008 at 6:53 am

   So what constitutes a “killer” dog breed? Multiple maimings have been documented from the following dog breeds…

   Akitas
   Australian Blue Heelers
   Bulldogs
   Bull Mastiffs
   Boxers
   Cane Corsos
   Chows (we owned one for over 15 years, never bit anyone, let alone killed)
   Collies
   Dalmations
   Dachshunds
   Dobermans
   German Shepherds
   Golden Retrievers
   Great Danes
   Huskies
   Labradors
   Malamutes
   Mastiffs
   Pitt Bulls (surprise)
   Poodles
   Rottweilers
   Sharpei
   Springer Spaniel

   Multiple fatalities have been recorded in the following breeds…

   Bulldogs
   Bull Mastiffs
   Boxers
   Chows
   Dobermans
   German Shepherds
   Great Danes
   Huskies
   Labradors
   Malamutes
   Mastiffs
   Pitbulls
   Rottweilers

   Certainly, the usual suspects…Dobermans, Rottweilers, and Pit Bulls account for most of the fatalities. But I do believe it is unfair to do as municipalities as Denver has done, and confiscate dogs to euthanize them following a ban…never attempting to adopt the dogs out. We’re talking about dogs that have shown no aggression and have committed no crimes, and they get the death sentence simply because of their origins.

   What breeds would you favor banning?

   [Reply]
6. neal says:

   July 11, 2008 at 7:53 am

   This reminds me of people pointing out how many folks die in swimming pool accidents each year and then ask “If we’re going to ban guns, shouldn’t we ban swimming pools?” For your next trick, I’d like you to plot the number of injuries caused by dachsunds next to the number of injuries caused by pit bulls.

   What had made these pit bull attacks significant lately is that there has been zero provocation from the victims. In the instance of the guy mowing his yard, the pit bull broke his chain to go attack the guy. I agree that the owners who condition their dogs to be killers are culpable and should be punished, but I’m fine with starting with a pit bull ban and going from there.

   Owning pets is nice, but having living, non-scarred children is nicer.

   EDIT: I would totally agree with you re: that Denver situation. I hadn’t heard about that, but I don’t think a ban on any type of dog means it should just have to be instantly handed over and put to sleep. Out-of-area adoption should definitely be an option.

   [Reply]
7. Mike Honcho says:

   July 11, 2008 at 2:25 pm

   Well, in Denver, it was ‘sort of’ an option. As an owner, you basically had a short amount of time to find a suitable home for the dog, and if you failed to do so, it would be confiscated and euthanized because adopting them them out would conflict with the city’s goal of eliminating the presence of the breed in the city, and probably within the nearby suburbs.

   I stated in my most recent post that the “usual suspects”, i.e. pit bulls, rottweilers, and dobermans are responsible for the majority of fatalities. While chows, boxers, and bulldogs aren’t nearly on the same level as the most dangerous breeds, they are often targeted in these “vicious dogs” bans based on their history of fatal attacks.

   I guess my problem with these types of bans is that there are genuinely good individuals within the breed, and quite often, I believe the owner is at greater fault than the dog itself. I watched one of those dog competitions a couple weeks ago where a dog and owner basically put on a freestyle show where the dog’s job was to catch frisbees. The ‘traditional’ breeds for such shows are typically border collies and Australian shepherds…but amazingly enough, a pit bull won the competition by virtue of great physical strength and agility, as well as endurance.

   Now, I’ll be the first to admit that I’d take a border collie over a pit bull any day, but it’s hard for me to tell a responsible person who has taken considerable precautions that they cannot own the dog of their choice because the scumball down the street beat his dog and trained it to fight, and as a result, the dog killed/maimed someone.

   Would I be totally heartbroken if there was a ban on pit bulls, rottweilers, and dobermans? No. While I have known several people with dogs that fit within these breeds, for every sweet and cuddly one, there was another that scared the hell out of me. I’ve been bitten by two dogs in my life, once by a rottweiler, and once (surprisingly) by a chocolate lab. Neither one drew any blood, and I don’t really have any residual fear of either breed.

   My only fear with a ban on pitts, rotts, and dobies is that once such a ban is in place, it becomes a lot easier to ban more breeds by just modifying the law. Say in Lincoln such a ban would be enacted…so nobody can own pitts, rotts, or dobies. The scumballs who turn these dogs into killers aren’t going to give up owning pets altogether…they’re going to go on to boxers, bulldogs, akitas, german shepherds, and mastiffs. Again, all of these dogs can be great, loving dogs with plenty of practical purposes…but a few bad owners and a few fatal attacks later, and they’ll be banned, too.

   I don’t worry about the government coming after more and more breeds because they can…I’m not one of ‘those guys’. I’m worried about them coming after more and more breeds because they’ll feel compelled to as a result of bad dog owners who care more about inflating their own egos than they do about maintaining the quality of the breed, as well as raising a safe, lovable pet.

   [Reply]
8. j says:

   July 11, 2008 at 2:43 pm

   I wasn’t complimenting or criticizing, I was pointing out a fact (see his july 9th column).

   I actually disagree strongly with you, but it’s an issue I’m fairly irrational about.

   I do really, really really feel that irresponsible owners are at fault, even in Lincoln you’d be surprised how many un-fixed pitbulls are “bred” and how many puppies and full grown dogs are taken in by people who train them to be vicoious. I know Omaha used to, and mostly likely still does, have a pretty serious dog-fighting problem (KFAB did some stories on it a few years ago).

   Mike has a good point though, if you ban PBs (a bit tricky since the PB “breed” is very loosely defined and ranges greatly in size, appearance and temperament) you do leave the door open to other bans. There have been plenty of wholly unprovoked attacks by other dogs, in fact many by the ubiquitous labs (including the labs that ripped his owners entire face off–leading to the first face transplant).

   This recent string of attacks, besides being just bizarre (4 in two weeks!) will probably spurn some sort of legislation (and kudos for the OWH for not being super-reactionary about it).
   I think a great staring point would be a strictly enforced leash law, a REQUIREMENT for all dogs w/in the city to be spayed and neutered and a crackdown on delinquent owners and “sign on telephone post” puppy sellers.

   [Reply]
9. neal says:

   July 11, 2008 at 2:59 pm

   I actually missed his July 9 column. If only the World-Herald believed this “Internet” thing was going to catch on.

   Maybe it’s because I don’t think my beloved Westie will ever be targeted by a ban, but I’m fully aware of the “slippery slope” potential and it does not bother me at all. These are pets we’re talking about, and it’s not like the idea of limiting ownership of animals within city limits is unprecedented. I’d love to put a cow in my back yard and have a nice bucket of milk each morning, but I can’t. And cows don’t even rip people’s faces off! I can’t own a tiger either!

   I don’t think just banning the dogs is the answer. The owners need to be severely punished for treating an animal that way, and that’s the bleeding-heart lib in me talking, Mike. But would you guys really go up to the parent of some child who was mauled by a dog completely unprovoked and tell them you don’t support banning pitbulls because then maybe rotweilers are next?

   [Reply]
10. Mike Honcho says:

    July 12, 2008 at 8:09 am

    No, I probably wouldn’t be able to say that to the parent.

    While pets are not the equivalent of children, they often do become part of the family, as you have probably experienced yourself. Knowing how much I love my dogs, I would be very angry if someone told me I had to give away my dog because of what someone else’s did (my dog is not a pitt, it’s a mutt).

    In place of a ban, I would like to see owners more severely punished. A precedent needs to be set that it is not okay to raise a vicious dog, and if your vicious dog maims or kills someone, you will spend as much time in prison as you would have if you committed the crime yourself.

    I would actually prefer a breed-specific muzzle law WAY over a breed ban. Make a law that says anytime you take your pitt, rott, doberman, or other “dangerous” dog breed off of your property, it must have a muzzle that has been approved by a local government entity, perhaps Animal Control or something like that. If owners disobey, citizens call and turn them in and the owner gets a fine. Break the law enough times, and your dog is taken from you.

    [Reply]
11. craven desires says:

    December 15, 2010 at 2:58 am

    hi neal, love the cartoon. request permission to post your cartoon on my angry anti-pit bull blog.

    [Reply]