Chicagoist: An Open Letter To 19th Ward Alderman Virginia Rugai

Mary Box

Thu, 06 Jul 2006 16:02:21 -0600

You can't be 34033 serious?!?

eric

Sat, 27 May 2006 14:58:50 -0600

long winded...

Nathan Miller

Tue, 02 May 2006 08:18:34 -0600

I have to say all you that want pitbulls dead are F*ckoffs... Hows about if your kid gets in a fight at school I go put a needle in his ass and bury him in my back yard.. or when you cut someone off for being a bad driver I take you to the shelter and put you down.. You all have alot to learn anything and anyone can snap unless all you teach them is love. My pitbull has been around my niece my friends babie s and all she does is clean them and take care of them like it was her puppy.. So how about you take you Beagles and little dogs and shuv them right up your tight ass'!!!

Angie

Sat, 29 Apr 2006 13:24:33 -0600

I seriouly think we need to readjust our thinking here. Banning certain breeds? Are you kidding me?! I am the PROUD OWNER of a beautiful American PitBull Terrier. She is the joy of my life and I wouldnt trade her for anything. Too many irresponsible pet owners are not being held accountable for their actions. Dogs are like children. They need to be taught what is appropriate. You tell your children no dont you? Then the same should go for your pets. They know what they are taught. I have never met a mean pitbull in my life. I am more afraid of the golden lab that lives across the street, who comes to MY yard to bark at me, than I am of a pitbull. Pits do not have a natural human aggression, although they can have dog aggression. Only natural. You dont like all people do you? Some just rub you the wrong way. Same for dogs. Before you jump on the bandwagon, all you pro-banners, do your homework. Go get educated. And not by the media hype you call "the news". Go experience for yourself what a pitbull is really like.

Pit Owner

Tue, 06 Dec 2005 13:12:02 -0600

Isn't America wonderful? We can come here and debate to our hearts content, yet law abiding citizens might soon be forced to give up our beloved family pets because of media hype and misinformation. I'm sure all you Pro-Pit Ban'ers are still out there buying anti-bacterial soap too. People need to start researching things on their own, not listening to TV. Think for yourselves. Don't let the boob tube and newspaper be your only source of information on life.

Linda

Fri, 02 Dec 2005 20:03:26 -0600

If some of the people posting anti-Pit messages here (this goes to you too Rugai) would educate themselves, it would do wonders! ALL dogs can bite. Any dog can kill. This is a proposal that screams discrimination! What next...telling us what kind of car to drive, what to wear? Lunacy!

Anonymous

Fri, 02 Dec 2005 16:58:47 -0600

Sandy, To clarify-my statement about breeding Pit bulls for dog fighting was not my own. It came directly from The American Pit Bull Rescue Center, I only made the assumption that since these folks do nothing but work with Pit Bulls they must have some verifiable knowledge about them. I've never actually met a pit bull myself!! (I tend to think that the number of years spent breeding for aggressiveness is purely an academic arguement. The fact seems to remain that Pit Bulls were indeed selectively breed, at sometime, for an aggressive trait. I have to guestion your statements about hunting dogs. I am not a hunter, but people I have known who are have told me that a hunting dog that is a "killer" is the worst dog to have for hunting. They claim the desired traits for hunting is to sniff out, flush out and they retrieve the hunted animals. Second, would you site the source of your information about the background of Pit Bulls since you seem so dogmatic in your certainty that only it is correct. Finally, I would like to clarify that I at NO time stated that Pit Bulls were breed to be aggressive towards humans specifically.

Janine

Fri, 02 Dec 2005 16:26:59 -0600

Jaws of steel? What planet are you on? The jaw of a pit bull is made of bone and bone marrow, just like any dog out there. They do not have locking jaws. They do not have a bite force of 2000 psi. In fact, it was recently shown that they have a bite force of approx. 300 psi. The same as the other two, non pit bull dogs tested. They do not 'snap'. Go to Understand-a-bull.com. They have a small list of articles where other dogs attacked. It's not anecdotal. Nor are the two APBTs working for the police in Washington anecdotal, or Popsicle the drug sniffing dog. How many of those who are pro-ban could tell an Alapaha Blue Bulldog from a pit bull? Or an American Bulldog from one? It's called due process people, and innocent until proven guilty. Not guilty no matter what. Do you realize the insurance repercussions from this ban? So many insurance companies will drop the owners like hotcakes if it is enacted. A man in California lost his insurance because his SERVICE DOG is a breed legislated against. Have some common sense.

DustCloud

Fri, 02 Dec 2005 15:53:16 -0600

Whoever says that, "Much like our city's ban on handguns, narcotics, prostitution, and assault, when this passes, everything will be much better..." Yeah...because we all know no one owns guns, does drugs, solicits prostitutes, and/or picks fights with others. Let's face it, the only people who would comply with the law are the responsible owners anyways. How fair is that?

heather

Fri, 02 Dec 2005 12:55:38 -0600

And to Spot... Many people owe thier life to dogs. They have been humans companions for a very long time. Dogs have offered assistance as protection and have been used in wartime. They help the blind, deaf and offer therapy. We have tested many medical techniques on dogs. Dog have offered food in the form of hunting and protected humans from wild animals. Dogs are only as dirty as the people that own them. You have a very unrealistic view of humans. Humans are DISGUSTING!! They do all kinds of unnatural things with thier body that only humans can think of. I see disgusting people every day and they choose to be that way!!

heather

Fri, 02 Dec 2005 12:49:54 -0600

First of all, most dogs were bred to kill and hunt (just other species) and yet this does not necessarily translate to human aggresssion. So, if pitbulls were bred to kill, so were many hunting dogs--it is called prey drive and all dogs have it. Boxers were also used for dog fighting too. So were Akitas, Chows, and some others. Dog bite stats are affected by breed popularity and without accurate numbers you just dont' know why some breeds bite more--in large urban areas you simply have more pitbulls than other breeds. There are places in IL that are proposing breed bans yet thier own data shows Black Labs as the number one biter. If we were talking about banning black labs most people would think that the city was insane, why? Because most black labs are loving, good natured dogs. And guess what? For every one pitbull that kills or injures someone there are thousands more that won't hurt anyone. Seriously folks, the stats say that pitbulls make up 1% of dog pop. and account for more than half of bites. Do you really believe that? Some shelters have more than 50% pitbulls. Compliance with licensing is estimated to be less than 50%. I have met lots of pitbulls and it seems to me that with pitbulls there are two camps: those who have experience with dogs and pitbulls and those that don't. I read these blogs all the time and every person that is PRO ban seems to lack basic dog understanding and knowledge, simpley spewing out lines from the news. People that love these dogs and speak on thier behalf are owners, trainers, Animal Control workers, shelter workers, vets and other behaviourist and EXPERTS. Who will I listen to? People with more experience. I will trust my own experience. When meeting any dog--I look at the owner to judge the dog.

Spot

Fri, 02 Dec 2005 10:49:20 -0600

Actually, China has the best idea of all: dogs are not allowed to be kept as pets. They're fucking disgusting -- they're typically bathed once a month or so, their dirty asses are sitting all over your furniture, they drool, they shed hair. I skeeve dogs. And I won't even get into their owners, who are even more loathesome.

Pits suck

Fri, 02 Dec 2005 09:58:28 -0600

I can't wait for this ban to pass. Much like our city's bans on handguns, narcotics, prostitution and assault, when this passes, eveything will be much better. The criminals will no longer train pit bulls to fight. The morons will no longer abuse their pets. And penny whistles will fall from the sky and the trees will blossom with moon pies.

Tom

Fri, 02 Dec 2005 09:10:10 -0600

Go to NoPitbullBans.com to find out more information on this issue. Chicago City council is lsowly chipping away at the rights of the citizens of Chicago.

Steven Crane

Fri, 02 Dec 2005 08:08:52 -0600

While we're at it, can we ban Marmaduke from the comics pages?

Anonymous

Fri, 02 Dec 2005 07:48:12 -0600

Here are some numbers, looks like the study is not super accurate... The CDC study (using 238 breed identifications) concludes that Pit Bulls and Rottweilers are responsible for over 50% of all human fatalties due to dog bite during the years 1979-1998. The addition of 43 breed identifications (for a total of 281 breed identifications) significantly changes the percentage of Pit Bull and Rottweiler fatal attack involvement from the CDC reported "over 50%" to a revised calculation of 38% involvement of Pit Bulls and Rottweilers in fatal attacks from 1979-1998. It should also be noted that there are at least another 46 fatal attacks (from 1979-1998) in which neither the CDC nor this study was able to obtain breed information. Certainly this presents the possiblity that the present statistics on individual breed involvement could change again if it becomes possible to uncover the remaining 46 unknown cases.

Julene

Fri, 02 Dec 2005 07:21:58 -0600

What are the numbers of attacks by pit bulls per year vs. the number of actual (let's say registered) pit bulls around? What are these numbers for other breeds? I'm off to google...

Sandi Coy

Fri, 02 Dec 2005 06:24:49 -0600

I want to say first of all, I loved the article. For people who know the breed and have half a brain they to can understand. For scientific approach, the information you have so eagerly put forth is bull s##t. The American Pit Bull Terrier was not "selectivly bred for hundreds of years to fight other dogs." Fact: the breed came about from some people of the peasantry that needed help on the farm. These animals were to help with vermin, round up cattle, and pull carts. It wasn't until someone who was well into their cups made the statement that they would "fight" a bull that his neighbor stated his would fight harder and longer. (just typical male my thing is bigger than yours behavior) that they started using this breed for bull baiting, then in the late 1890's they outlawed that. Men being the boys that they are and trying to prove how "great" they are by the animals expense set up the first sanctioned dog fight. That actually happened in Lexington KY about 1894 if I remember correctly. Up until that point these animals were not "bred to kill each other", and not only that but if there was a human aggressive dog that was put into the pit it was killed so the human aggression is not and has never been a trait that is allowed in our breed. Human aggressive dogs happen in all breeds and in all breeds they need to be put down. So looking at the time frame that is historically correct we can see that not much over 100 years has gone into the fighting dog. And in fact since dog fighting was outlawed in the 1970's even less time than that. Zak, when it is illegal to openly discriminate against a race of people, might I not be able to do the very same thing by outlawing their dogs, or music, or any other form of expression that is a part of their culture? Racism comes in many different forms and we need to as caring, intellegent human beings stop racism in all its forms across the board. Case in point in Aurora Co Councilwoman Mollie (something) made the statement that "we don't want those kind of people that own Pit Bulls in our community." she like so many others was equating the ownership of the APBT to drug dealers, blacks and hispanics, by her own statements. Is this the hidden type of predudism that you wish to see continue? I personally judge each and every person on what I see, not the color of their skin or the dog they own. Just trying to bring another view to a very worthy subject.

Sandi Coy

Fri, 02 Dec 2005 06:24:08 -0600

Zak

Thu, 01 Dec 2005 17:08:33 -0600

I apologize to those offended, but I keep hearing a lot of, "Well my pit-bull is a sweetie..." Needless to say, anecdotal evidence doesn't fly in research...and it shouldn't fly in legislation. While we ALL know a very sweet pit bull and we all knew a mean, vicious border collie that bit our Uncle Herb in the nuts while he was sleeping. BUT...those are ALL ANECDOTES. I'm sorry, but pit bulls are simply dangerous dogs...and have been bred for a long time for that express purpose. I'm not sure I support a ban, but some sort of registration and certainly stiffer penalties for pit bull owners whose dogs attack people. The comparison to banning racial minoriites is absolute bullshit. WE'RE TALKING ABOUT FUCKING DOGS! DOGS AIN'T PEOPLE! DOGS DON'T HAVE PEOPLE BRAINS! DOGS! They are, by their very nature simpler than human beings! The comparison is demeaning. Moreover, the issue of banning pit bulls has more to do with the SHEER NUMBERS OF IRRESPONSIBLE DOG OWNERS who don't properly leash or contain their pit bulls. It's not that they're inherently dangerous animals, per se, but rather that they're more prone to violence and that many (most?) dog owners are complete fucking idiots who don't properly restrain their animals. If i had a nickel for every time I've been snapped at by a goddamn pit bull or rottweiller in Roger's Park (most of them on leashes...but ones long enough that they could maul my face without even so much as tugging on their owners arm)... Ok...disjointed and rambly...but comparing bias against certain breeds of dogs against structural racism is ludicrous.

scientific approach?

Thu, 01 Dec 2005 16:45:34 -0600

Emmy does look like a sweet dog and I've no doubt she is a loving, loyal pet. Just like any other animal, (man included), individual dogs within breeds can vary greatly. But the fact that "The American Pit Bull Terrier has been "selectively" bred for hundreds of years to fight other dogs...in mortal combat" really should not be ignored. (quote from the American Pit Bill Rescue Center). We can no more control animal abuse than we can child abuse and the effects of that abuse can surface in the form of killer dogs or murderers. What about a control mechanism on the breeders Chuck? Perhaps it's possible. They can select out pit bulls with the least amount of aggression for breeding dogs for the general public. Even in-breed if necessary to surpress the aggression bred into this line of dogs originally. In short, they created it why can't they un-create it? There could be some legal responsibility/penalty impossed on breeders if they do not comply. The more aggressive members of this breed could be sold strickly for guard dog purposes. That could be licensed and controlled through tagging, strict ownership laws, etc.. Chicagoist has many intelligent readers maybe even people who are dog breeders. Anyone have any ideas that could expand on this or contribute information? Perhaps we can offer the Alderman an alternative solution that is a win/win for dog lovers, the dogs and people who are around them.

Edward

Thu, 01 Dec 2005 16:33:12 -0600

Why not ban black people? I mean, after all, SOME of them have robbed, hurt, and even KILLED other people! So, since some of them have, all of them have that in them, right? Same with hispanics, and asians and caucasians. I know...let's ban EVERYTHING! Then we can regain our utopian society. People are so uninformed and fragile it's offensive.

Jeff Jenks

Thu, 01 Dec 2005 16:30:27 -0600

I have a pitbull named Kreutz (after Olin Kreutz...we are BIG Bears fans) and he is the sweetest thing ever...just like Emmy. People that hate or fear pits are the same people that swallow every bit of propaganda and fear mongering that is fed to the public by the media. Get your heads out of your asses! Everyone in my neighborhood (Roscoe Village) that has been around my dog absoutely loves him...he is good with other dogs, people, babies, children, whatever. This ban better not pass. Here is a gallery of my boy: http://www.boovulate.com/kreutzpics.html

Anonymous

Thu, 01 Dec 2005 14:47:51 -0600

Pro Ban, as one other person stated, if this goes through then it will be breed after breed of dog that starts getting banned---whether you want to admit it learned behavior in dogs can be unlearned. And there are plenty of people roaming the streets who are killing other people, how 'bout we put a ban on certain breeds of humans as well (note: SARCASM)

Anonymous

Thu, 01 Dec 2005 14:12:29 -0600

I am pro-pit bull ban. Many dogs are adopted after they've gone thru abusive hell, and if they hear their "trigger" to start fighting, they can snap. Usually a piercing child's scream can do it. Pt bulls have jaws of steel, so comparing another dog's bite to a pit bull's is laughable. People aren't killed by beagles roaming the Dan Ryan Woods.

Julene

Thu, 01 Dec 2005 13:56:20 -0600

The only pit bulls that I've ever met have been quite the lovers. Of course, the ones in my old neighborhood were not so nice due to the fact that their owners would throw them on top of fences to intentionally harm them and make them angry enough to fight. What's the problem again? Humans? I think so.

Pat B

Thu, 01 Dec 2005 13:55:15 -0600

This is such a cliche, but I can't help myself. Why are aldermen worrying about dogs when there are far more vicious animals out there really wreaking havok - humans. Let's work on getting rid of the real criminals and leave the poor dogs alone.

NotSoHealthy

Thu, 01 Dec 2005 13:21:21 -0600

Chuck you noted a grandfather clause in the proposed ban, which means as long as your dog is tagged and licensed (and insured and microchipped), this ban won't apply to you. No worries, the kkk won't be taking your baby away.

New bureau

Thu, 01 Dec 2005 12:51:35 -0600

don't worry, if the dog has to go you can always go with and create a new ist bereau. How about Schaumburgist, I'm sure there is a big demand.

Anonymous

Thu, 01 Dec 2005 12:43:04 -0600

Having met Emmy, I would attest that the only harm she may cause is licking you to death! As for the don't let dog alone with child--wouldn't that be pretty much par for the course with ANY dog considering children like to do things like pull ears and fur and squeeze them too hard?

Matt Wood

Thu, 01 Dec 2005 12:39:05 -0600

Lobotomy, you could say that about every dog. I used to have a little shepherd mix mutt that bit a child. We later found out that the source of her aggressive behavior was that she had been abused as a puppy before we adopted her (which the agency neglected to tell us). Any dog can become dangerous in the wrong hands, not just pit bulls. Legislation like this won't solve anything. If we ban pit bulls, then Rotts will become the problem, then Dobermans, then German shepherds and so on. Bad owners are the issue, not certain breeds.

Joseph J. Finn

Thu, 01 Dec 2005 12:29:17 -0600

Would it be plausible to require that all dogs be tagged with chips, such as Oakland does?

Lobotomy Jones

Thu, 01 Dec 2005 12:17:18 -0600

Don't ever turn your back on that dog and don't ever let it NEAR a child unattended.