The Denver Massacre

Denver’s breed specific ban went into effect in 1989 and was enforced with discretion for the next 15 years. In 2004, Colorado passed a state law prohibiting cities and counties from singling out certain dogs. In 2005, Denver sued…and won saying the “home rule” gave Denver the right to do what they wanted regardless of state law. May 9, 2005 residents and pitbull owners of Denver were given 30 days to remove their dogs from the city. On the first day, more than a dozen dogs were seized. In the first year it is said that over 1,400 dogs were removed from family homes and eliminated. Today the number is estimated somewhere around 3,500.

I’m sure we have all heard numerous stories in the media about pitbull attacks and these attacks are what spur people to action on putting BSL in place. In the hopes that it can reduce tragic accidents.

The National Canine Research Council works tirelessly to get to the truth of dog-related fatalities. Unlike the folks who keep the NCRC mission is “to be as accurate about these emotionally charged incidents as we can, so that they are calmly, correctly and, therefore, usefully understood.” These folks have done their homework. They contacted law enforcement and witnesses involved, reviewed reports, and visited sites of the attacks. NCRC found that in 2009 there were 31 dog-related fatalities. 71% of the incidents involved “resident” pets, defined as pets kept away from regular human interaction (i.e. in a cage, kennel, basement, or yard), of that number 35% of them were kept exclusively on chains. In 84% of the incidents pets were not spayed or neutered. In 20% owners were charged with a crime (read: dogs were acting protectively) and in 20% dogs were severely abused and/or neglected.

Now here is where it gets really interesting. Of the 31 dog-related fatalities reported in 2009, only 30% (that’s 9!) of the dogs involved were able to be accurately identified by breed. If you read the report you will see many of them were called pitbulls but few of them identified as such.

My points are these: 1) Denver sucks (BOO!!!). I guess that’s not completely fair, their ordinance does stipulate that if you have a pitbull and have had it since before the ordinance was in place, you can keep it. So, that’s great news for all of those Denverites with 22 year old dogs. 2) BSL is wrong (and really not breed specific but type specific) and has yet to show it is effective in lowering dog bite incidents. 3) People use the word pitbull liberally. To quote Inigo Montoya, “You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.”

Think you know what one looks like? Then find the pitbull.

About Anonymous Burn

I'm just a girl who has a blog. But I'm kinda groovy, too.

2 thoughts on “The Denver Massacre

  1. missyvixn says:

    Some breed related legislation targets “dangerous breeds” or “violent breeds” which I think is just as ridiculous as breed specific legislation. Many of the pits I know are lovely and well adjusted, and my german shepherds are hardly violent. Its all ridiculous. Want to legislate? How about restrictions on chaining your dog for extended periods of time or crating/caging them for their entire lives… or my favorite lets make it illegal to ride with your dog in the back of a pick up truck… just sliding around while the truck is barreling down the highway or taking turns at 40 mph.
    Okay, I’m done ranting…

    • I totally agree, Melissa. The NCRC says dog bites “are the result of complex interactions between sentient creatures of different species. They occur in the most uncontrolled and unscientific settings imaginable. However one breaks down the “factors” – whether related to the dog, the owner, the environment, or the victim – they cannot be measured against each other.” As such, how can you then blame any breed or type? An ordinance in Saginaw, Michigan defines dangerous dog as “any dog that by physical appearance could be believed by any reasonable person to have sufficient physical or temperamental characteristics or behaviors to be a “mix” of any of the breeds listed or a “mix” with a non-listed dog where the mixture exhibits the dominant physical appearance of a dog on the list, and any other dog that has the substantial physical characteristics and appearance of those breeds on the list.” How vague is that? If it looks like or anyone thinks it might look like or could look like or will look like then it is dangerous. It just seems so wrong.

What Say You?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s