An article in the Rocky Mountain News today sure makes my blood boil!
Ok, first of all, the first statement "bites dropped from 35 in 2005 to 9 last year".Denver has been well known for 'enforcement' of the ban. Actually that would be the understatement of the year! Would it not make sense that if you eliminate or drastically reduce the numbers of a so called breed, there would automatically be fewer bites? If you took most of the red cars off the road, wouldn't there be fewer accidents involving red cars? I know hoards of people fled out of Denver city limits to avoid the door to door campaign or 'killing spree'. I hardly think this is something to brag about!
Doug Kelley, Director of Animal Control in Denver is one piece of work! How bloody moronic can a person be? (please don't answer that..)
Kory Nelson, Kelley and the band of buffoons sure amuse themselves spewing BS. I love it when fact is substituted with fiction.
I am sick to death of statements being splashed around, with NO evidence to back them up, and no accountability. I daydream sometimes that those who spew such hatred and BS could have karma happen instantaneously. (This wish extends to those who spew hatred and BS on any subject). Imagine if as soon as the spew begins to flow from their mouth, their tongue swelled to the size of a double bubble competition, and stayed so until a blathering recant came from the depths of their throat..? oh well , nice dream.
This statement infuriates me!
From 2005 to 2007, the city euthanized 1,667 pit bulls - a number that doesn't sit well with animal rights activists.
The word 'euthanized' is a word which means to humanely put an animal out of misery. The correct term would be killed or murdered. And I highly doubt this statement didn't sit well with the likes of PETA or HSUS or other animal rights activist groups, since they push and lobby for breed bans and killing of innocent animals. In fact they will show up in their van equiped to do the 'dirty work' themselves.
Equally infuriating are these next 2 paragraphs:
"Pit bulls are a demonstrably (vicious) breed that can inflict terrible harm," said Aurora Councilman Bob Fitzgerald. "As far as I'm concerned, the ban is having a positive effect on pit bull bites. I think we ought to leave it in place until I'm long dead." Bob, dude, what the h - e - double hockey stick is a vicious breed? And can't you get it through your thick neandrathal skull THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A 'PIT BULL'! Could we arrange the PETA van to make a quick stop at Bob's house?
Nancy Sheffield, director of Aurora Neighborhood Services, said complaints about pit bulls dropped from 532 in 2006 to 400 in 2007. Since the ban, bites by restricted breeds fell from 27 in 2005 to eight in 2006 before climbing to 15 last year. Nancy has been a regular irritant in the Denver news. Isn't it time for she and Bob to retire? She ain't no 'Mr. Rogers'! Will you be mine... would you be mine... will you be my director of neighborhood services?
I just have one more comment, then I will leave you to read the whole article below in its painful entirety.
Three years ago, Florence Vianzon could walk her beloved pit bull, Isis, freely around Aurora without drawing disapproving stares.
Now she dresses Isis, which she rescued as puppy, in fluffy pink outfits and a pink muzzle, so people won't feel fearful. What the hell has the world come to? People feel they have to dress their dog in pink fluffy outfits so people won't feel fearful? Oh and what if they do feel fearful? Well, they call Nancy Sheffield to order the killing of your dog!
Nuff said on this subject.. off to stew some more..
Metro dog bans: Fewer bites in
Denver, more in Aurora
By April M. Washington
Originally published 05:09 p.m., April 20, 2008
Updated 12:47 p.m., April 21, 2008
Updated 12:47 p.m., April 21, 2008
Denver animal-control officials are lauding the city's pit bull ban after seeing bites drop from 39 in 2005 to nine last year.
But in other metro-area cities with bans, statistics on bites are spotty and hard to interpret, and some officials question how well breed-specific bans are working.
For example, Aurora last year saw a surge in overall dog bites, from 137 in 2006 to 172 in 2007, leading some City Council members to ask if that city's ban against pit bulls and eight other "fighting breeds" is targeting the right dogs.
"From what I'm seeing, we need to focus on dog attacks as a whole," said Councilman Ryan Frazier. "If all of the city's resources are focused on certain breeds, then what about the other dogs behaving badly?"
Aurora Councilman Larry Beer echoed Frazier's sentiment.
But in Denver, Doug Kelley, director of animal control, said there is no question the ban is effective.
One likely reason: "The word is getting out: Don't bring your pit bulls to Denver," Kelley said.
"This city is committed to the ordinance banning pit bulls passed in 1989," Kelley added. "What can be proven is that when a pit bull bites, statistically it's more serious than other dog bites."
Denver hasn't hesitated to enforce the ban.
From 2005 to 2007, the city euthanized 1,667 pit bulls - a number that doesn't sit well with animal rights activists.
"These laws layer irrational premise atop irrational premise and result in senseless destruction of companion animals," said Karen Breslin, an attorney who filed a failed lawsuit against Denver to stop the ban.
Effect debated
In 2005, when Denver reinstated its ban, Aurora, Commerce City, Castle Rock, Lakewood and Lone Tree adopted laws either outlawing pit bulls and other dangerous dogs or revising their vicious-dog ordinances.
They did it to protect themselves from becoming a dumping ground for pit bulls from Denver.
In the past three years, a review of dog bite data from those cities gives a mixed picture as to how much they're furthering public safety.
Bites by pit bulls and other restricted breeds have fallen some years and climbed others, and the number of overall dog bites is up in some places.
Lakewood, for example, recorded 217 bites in 2007 - 34 by pit bulls. In 2004, before the ordinance, the city recorded 183 bites (22 by pit bulls) and in 2003, there were 267 bites (21 by pit bulls.)
Commerce City's numbers mirrors Aurora's. In the years from 2005 to 2007, overall bites went from seven to 70 and 67, but breeds are not recorded.
"Can I sit here and say because of our ban the number of pit bull bites or incidents are down?" said police Detective Mike Sanders "No. I don't have clear documentation to say that."
But lawmakers in Commerce City and Aurora aren't likely to back away from their bans, given that some council members say pit bull incidents are down.
"Pit bulls are a demonstrably (vicious) breed that can inflict terrible harm," said Aurora Councilman Bob Fitzgerald. "As far as I'm concerned, the ban is having a positive effect on pit bull bites. I think we ought to leave it in place until I'm long dead."
Nancy Sheffield, director of Aurora Neighborhood Services, said complaints about pit bulls dropped from 532 in 2006 to 400 in 2007. Since the ban, bites by restricted breeds fell from 27 in 2005 to eight in 2006 before climbing to 15 last year.
"That's a significant improvement, and it's an indication that the ordinance is effective," she said.
'Outcast' treatment
Many pit bull owners remain angry about the bans, saying they feel like pariahs.
Three years ago, Florence Vianzon could walk her beloved pit bull, Isis, freely around Aurora without drawing disapproving stares.
Now she dresses Isis, which she rescued as puppy, in fluffy pink outfits and a pink muzzle, so people won't feel fearful.
"I'm basically treated as an outcast because of these irrational laws," said Vianzon, who filed a lawsuit two years ago challenging Aurora's pit bull ban. "I have to doll her up so people look past the muzzle and see her personality and not just view her as a so- called vicious dog. She's very much a loving part of my family."
Vianzon and others like her get support from the American Veterinary Medical Association and animal rights groups. They oppose breed-specific laws, arguing that dog-bite data is often skewed and fails to give an accurate picture of dogs that bite.
Karen Delise, a veterinarian who has written two books on fatal dog attacks, says breeding, neglect and abuse, environmental stresses, genetics and irresponsible owners can create aggressive dogs. She believes media reporting is biased against pit bulls.
"With little coverage or no coverage given to other breed attacks, it is easy to understand how the perception that pit bulls are responsible for the most severe and frequent attacks has come to be accepted as fact by many people," Delise said.
Dogs cause fewer than 30 deaths annually in the U.S., but pit bulls may get disproportionate blame because of their sheer numbers - they are among the most popular breeds in America, experts say.
Additionally, some owners still raise pit bulls to be aggressive and breed them to fight, giving all pit bull owners a black eye, experts say.
Fleeing the ban
Denver has successfully withstood a number of legal challenges since it adopted its ban in 1989.
Last month, a federal judge dismissed a suit by three Denver women who claimed the ban was unconstitutional.
Meanwhile, a lawsuit challenging Aurora's ban filed by Vianzon and the American Canine Foundation is expected to go to trial this summer.
Attorney Karen Breslin said Aurora and Commerce City should follow in the footsteps of Parker and Lakewood and focus on irresponsible owners, not certain breeds.
Lakewood and Parker councils rejected breed-specific bans three years ago.
Instead, Lakewood revised its vicious dog laws to give judges wide latitude to fine owners or remove their dogs.
And a task force in Parker is currently proposing revisions to the town's ordinance that would provide incentives to pet owners who have their animals spayed or neutered to limit aggressive behavior, said Tawny Albright, a task force member.
"The council here is sensitive to the public's opinion, and 90 percent of the town is opposed to breed-specific bans," she said.
washingtonam@RockyMountainNews.com or 303-954-5086
A tale of two cities and two bans
DENVER'S BAN
No pit bulls or pit bull mixes. On first offense, city puts microchip in dog's ear and owners must move dog outside city. On second offense, dog is destroyed.
HISTORY
* 1989: Denver adopts ordinance making it illegal for any person to own, harbor, transport or sell a pit bull mix in the city.
* 1991: Law survives Colorado Supreme Court challenge.
* 2004: Ordinance is suspended when a state law prohibits breed-specific bans.
* 2005: Ordinance is reinstated after the city successfully challenges the state law.
* 2008: Court dismisses suit challenging the constitutionality of ban.
STATISTICS, 2005-07
Year Total bites Pit bull bites
2005 504 39
2006 493 14
2007 429 9
* 2,318 pit bulls or mixes impounded
* 1,668 euthanized
AURORA'S BAN
No pit bulls, American bulldogs, Canary dogs, Tosa Inus, Cane Corsos, Dogo Argentinos, Presa Mallorquins, Fila Brasileiroser.
STATISTICS, 2005-07
Year Totalbites Pit bull/restricted breed bites
2005 137 27
2006 137 8
2007 172 15
* 1,027 pit bulls and restricted breeds impounded in 2006 and 2007
* 809 pit bulls and restricted breeds euthanized
But in other metro-area cities with bans, statistics on bites are spotty and hard to interpret, and some officials question how well breed-specific bans are working.
For example, Aurora last year saw a surge in overall dog bites, from 137 in 2006 to 172 in 2007, leading some City Council members to ask if that city's ban against pit bulls and eight other "fighting breeds" is targeting the right dogs.
"From what I'm seeing, we need to focus on dog attacks as a whole," said Councilman Ryan Frazier. "If all of the city's resources are focused on certain breeds, then what about the other dogs behaving badly?"
Aurora Councilman Larry Beer echoed Frazier's sentiment.
But in Denver, Doug Kelley, director of animal control, said there is no question the ban is effective.
One likely reason: "The word is getting out: Don't bring your pit bulls to Denver," Kelley said.
"This city is committed to the ordinance banning pit bulls passed in 1989," Kelley added. "What can be proven is that when a pit bull bites, statistically it's more serious than other dog bites."
Denver hasn't hesitated to enforce the ban.
From 2005 to 2007, the city euthanized 1,667 pit bulls - a number that doesn't sit well with animal rights activists.
"These laws layer irrational premise atop irrational premise and result in senseless destruction of companion animals," said Karen Breslin, an attorney who filed a failed lawsuit against Denver to stop the ban.
Effect debated
In 2005, when Denver reinstated its ban, Aurora, Commerce City, Castle Rock, Lakewood and Lone Tree adopted laws either outlawing pit bulls and other dangerous dogs or revising their vicious-dog ordinances.
They did it to protect themselves from becoming a dumping ground for pit bulls from Denver.
In the past three years, a review of dog bite data from those cities gives a mixed picture as to how much they're furthering public safety.
Bites by pit bulls and other restricted breeds have fallen some years and climbed others, and the number of overall dog bites is up in some places.
Lakewood, for example, recorded 217 bites in 2007 - 34 by pit bulls. In 2004, before the ordinance, the city recorded 183 bites (22 by pit bulls) and in 2003, there were 267 bites (21 by pit bulls.)
Commerce City's numbers mirrors Aurora's. In the years from 2005 to 2007, overall bites went from seven to 70 and 67, but breeds are not recorded.
"Can I sit here and say because of our ban the number of pit bull bites or incidents are down?" said police Detective Mike Sanders "No. I don't have clear documentation to say that."
But lawmakers in Commerce City and Aurora aren't likely to back away from their bans, given that some council members say pit bull incidents are down.
"Pit bulls are a demonstrably (vicious) breed that can inflict terrible harm," said Aurora Councilman Bob Fitzgerald. "As far as I'm concerned, the ban is having a positive effect on pit bull bites. I think we ought to leave it in place until I'm long dead."
Nancy Sheffield, director of Aurora Neighborhood Services, said complaints about pit bulls dropped from 532 in 2006 to 400 in 2007. Since the ban, bites by restricted breeds fell from 27 in 2005 to eight in 2006 before climbing to 15 last year.
"That's a significant improvement, and it's an indication that the ordinance is effective," she said.
'Outcast' treatment
Many pit bull owners remain angry about the bans, saying they feel like pariahs.
Three years ago, Florence Vianzon could walk her beloved pit bull, Isis, freely around Aurora without drawing disapproving stares.
Now she dresses Isis, which she rescued as puppy, in fluffy pink outfits and a pink muzzle, so people won't feel fearful.
"I'm basically treated as an outcast because of these irrational laws," said Vianzon, who filed a lawsuit two years ago challenging Aurora's pit bull ban. "I have to doll her up so people look past the muzzle and see her personality and not just view her as a so- called vicious dog. She's very much a loving part of my family."
Vianzon and others like her get support from the American Veterinary Medical Association and animal rights groups. They oppose breed-specific laws, arguing that dog-bite data is often skewed and fails to give an accurate picture of dogs that bite.
Karen Delise, a veterinarian who has written two books on fatal dog attacks, says breeding, neglect and abuse, environmental stresses, genetics and irresponsible owners can create aggressive dogs. She believes media reporting is biased against pit bulls.
"With little coverage or no coverage given to other breed attacks, it is easy to understand how the perception that pit bulls are responsible for the most severe and frequent attacks has come to be accepted as fact by many people," Delise said.
Dogs cause fewer than 30 deaths annually in the U.S., but pit bulls may get disproportionate blame because of their sheer numbers - they are among the most popular breeds in America, experts say.
Additionally, some owners still raise pit bulls to be aggressive and breed them to fight, giving all pit bull owners a black eye, experts say.
Fleeing the ban
Denver has successfully withstood a number of legal challenges since it adopted its ban in 1989.
Last month, a federal judge dismissed a suit by three Denver women who claimed the ban was unconstitutional.
Meanwhile, a lawsuit challenging Aurora's ban filed by Vianzon and the American Canine Foundation is expected to go to trial this summer.
Attorney Karen Breslin said Aurora and Commerce City should follow in the footsteps of Parker and Lakewood and focus on irresponsible owners, not certain breeds.
Lakewood and Parker councils rejected breed-specific bans three years ago.
Instead, Lakewood revised its vicious dog laws to give judges wide latitude to fine owners or remove their dogs.
And a task force in Parker is currently proposing revisions to the town's ordinance that would provide incentives to pet owners who have their animals spayed or neutered to limit aggressive behavior, said Tawny Albright, a task force member.
"The council here is sensitive to the public's opinion, and 90 percent of the town is opposed to breed-specific bans," she said.
washingtonam@RockyMountainNews.com or 303-954-5086
A tale of two cities and two bans
DENVER'S BAN
No pit bulls or pit bull mixes. On first offense, city puts microchip in dog's ear and owners must move dog outside city. On second offense, dog is destroyed.
HISTORY
* 1989: Denver adopts ordinance making it illegal for any person to own, harbor, transport or sell a pit bull mix in the city.
* 1991: Law survives Colorado Supreme Court challenge.
* 2004: Ordinance is suspended when a state law prohibits breed-specific bans.
* 2005: Ordinance is reinstated after the city successfully challenges the state law.
* 2008: Court dismisses suit challenging the constitutionality of ban.
STATISTICS, 2005-07
Year Total bites Pit bull bites
2005 504 39
2006 493 14
2007 429 9
* 2,318 pit bulls or mixes impounded
* 1,668 euthanized
AURORA'S BAN
No pit bulls, American bulldogs, Canary dogs, Tosa Inus, Cane Corsos, Dogo Argentinos, Presa Mallorquins, Fila Brasileiroser.
STATISTICS, 2005-07
Year Totalbites Pit bull/restricted breed bites
2005 137 27
2006 137 8
2007 172 15
* 1,027 pit bulls and restricted breeds impounded in 2006 and 2007
* 809 pit bulls and restricted breeds euthanized
