Animal Rights

The Killing of the Misunderstood 3,500: Denver's Pit Bull Ban

Published October 29, 2009 @ 07:24AM PT

Denver's Westword published some really difficult-to-read material (and heartbreaking-to-see images) in the last month related to the city's pit bull ban. The reports were undoubtedly rough for any animal advocates who saw them, but I imagine that those involved in pit bull rescue and those who ourselves know and love a pit bull whom others have thought "unfixable" may have been hit even harder.

As many readers know, I live with a loving but traumatized rescued pit bull (an American Pit Bull Terrier to be exact), and her recovery from the abuse inflicted on her by humans has been slow. Two weeks ago, she hit a milestone in that recovery (more related to that coming in a post this weekend), but if we lived in Denver or any other city with breed-specific legislation, she never would have gotten that chance; Mabel would have been dead -- killed -- a long time ago. And knowing that perhaps intensifies my own personal anger, frustration, and heartbreak in response to these laws.

First, before we get to the heart of the issues, I'd like to give you the links to Westword's recent detailed coverage. Initially, this story appeared in the paper: "For two decades, pit bulls have been public enemy #1 in Denver. But maybe it's time for a recount." And these posts appeared concurrently and in the hours and days, respectively, to come: "Inside Denver's 'Pit Bull Row'" and "3,497 dead dogs and other numbers from Denver's pit bull ban," the former taking us inside the "row" and showing us the sweet, scared faces of the dogs awaiting death there. Then a couple weeks later came this jarring post, revealing to us the piles of dead dogs (before following this link, please note that the images are difficult to see): "Leaked: photos of pit bulls killed due to Denver ban."

Denver's pit bull ban has been in place for 20 years now, and for just as long, animal advocates have been fighting it. Pit bulls aren't the inherently vicious animals some people -- and laws -- make them out to be, and bans on pit bulls and the mass killing of these dogs defy logic. Consider this, from Westword's in-depth story:

Firearms killed over 30,000 people in the United States in 2006, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. On average, dogs kill 23 people per year. Of those, six are killed by pit bulls. As a health hazard, pit bulls rate below bees, lightning and mooses in the number of deaths for which they're responsible.

And study after study has shown that although the number of dog bites has decreased dramatically in the time that the ban has been in place, this is not by any means a clear result of the law -- during the same time period, dog bite numbers across the country have declined in the same way, including in major cities that do not have breed-specific legislation. The decrease in dog bites is a national trend, not one that reflects any sort of success with Denver's ban:

Even Doug Kelley, who worked for Lakewood's animal control before becoming the director of Denver's animal control in 2000, attributes Denver's decline in bites not to the pit bull ban, but to metro-wide spay and neutering efforts and better enforcement of the city's non-breed-specific laws, such as calls for dogs at large.

Stats also challenge another frequent argument in support of breed bans: that pit bull bites, even if not the most frequent, are responsible for the most injury and death to the victims. So how does Denver explain the following?

A person bitten by a dog in Denver is much more likely to go to the hospital than a person bitten in Boulder, Jefferson, Broomfield and El Paso counties, none of which ban pit bulls. In fact, Denver has the highest rate of hospitalization for dog bites of any county in the state. Not everyone who gets bitten by a dog will go to the doctor; one study found that only 80 percent of dog bites were severe enough to warrant a hospital visit. But even though Denver residents are reporting the same or fewer dog bites per capita than residents of neighboring cities, they're going to the hospital more often — which suggests that their bites are worse. And that's not because of pit bulls.

So really, what does this mean? It means that in places such as Denver, the bans have resulted in an increase in overall violence and harm -- because violence against nonhuman animals is still violence. Injury to humans has gone down in keeping with national trends, not because of the ban, but violence against nonhuman animals has shot up, with literally thousands of animals being killed arbitrarily because they have physical pit bull characteristics -- not because they have certain personality traits, not because they have shown signs of aggression, not because they've ever harmed anyone, but simply because they have big heads and broad chests.

The most recent coverage by Westword (an organization I can't commend enough for staying so on top of this issue) relates to which animals are determined by Denver's animal control to be pit bulls. The focus of the piece is how flawed that process is -- how many dogs who aren't pit bulls are labeled as such. How it works is this, and note that "characteristics" refers only to physical characteristics, not to behavior:

[One evaluator fills] out the checklist and then make[s] a determination whether the dog has the majority of the characteristics of a pit bull. Two other evaluators will do the same, then submit their reports to the shelter's "pit bull desk." If two out of three evaluations conclude that the dog's not a pit bull, the owner gets the dog back after paying a five-dollar-per-day boarding fee. If the majority of the evaluators think it is a pit bull, in order to get the dog back, the owner must pay a $45-per-day impoundment fee, a $5-per-day-impoundment fee, a $25 microchip fee, the fine for the illegal-breed citation, and provide a legally binding statement that the dog will be relocated outside city limits within a certain time period. If a dog identified as a pit bull is picked up in Denver for a second time, an owner loses all rights.

But experts have recently determined that the city's evaluations have been way off -- that animal control has been slapping the pit bull label on dogs who aren't. But this isn't even remotely the problem. I can understand how individual caregivers of dogs in Denver might find this important -- how someone desperate to get his or her dog companion back would want to fight against the pit bull designation.

But how and which dogs are being given their scarlet letter isn't the injustice -- it's that people have to prove the dogs they love aren't pit bulls in order to save their lives. It shouldn't matter whether the dog is a pit bull or has physical pit bull traits in the first place. The truth that boggles the mind is that the aggressive golden retriever in one house is perfectly safe, whereas the gentle pit bull down the street who cuddles up at the foot of a three-year-old's bed at night, and who has never shown an ounce of aggression toward anyone, is banished out of the city or killed and thrown atop a pile of other dead dogs.

Pit bull bans and other breed-specific legislation are fundamentally, morally wrong.

Denver, it's time to get rid of that law. Let the pit bulls go home.

---

Photo at top, of a dog in an Oklahoma shelter, by Flickr user Meagan

Photo at bottom of Mabel by Stephanie Ernst (i.e., me, obviously)

Share this Post

Related Posts

Comments (18)

  1. Kathy Jackson

    All I have to say is WHAT gives humans the right to take the lives of ANY animal? I looked at these heartbreaking photos and it just angers me! Why? Why can't people see that this is wrong and it doesn't have to be this way!!

    Denver is just cruel and heartless, and really should be ashamed of themselves. I've always believed that any human that hurts an animal has no heart, no feeling, and no compassion; and if they can hurt a animal, imagine what they can do to another human such as a family memeber or friend, or a stranger on the street. They have no compassion and it's wrong. It's disturbing.

     

    Posted by Kathy Jackson on 10/29/2009 @ 08:33AM PT

  2. Denver is The Poster Child for the ineffectiveness of breed bans in the United States(Toledo is a close second). Worldwide, the UK has perhaps the worst track record with its 1991 Dangerous Dog Act.

    I've covered Denver several times at my own blog (which has pictures of my sassy old lady pit bull you might like, Stephanie): http://for-the-pits.blogspot.com/search/label/denver

    Pit bull bans target two already disenfranchised populations - pit bulls and their owners/guardians. Can you imagine the outrage if Labrador Retrievers were the targets? (Even though Labs often account for more/as many bites as APBT/ASTs and are as popular as APBT/ASTs).

    Posted by Marji Beach on 10/29/2009 @ 09:07AM PT

  3. Stephanie Ernst

    I knew not about this other blog, Marji! Thanks for linking over to it. And yes, sweet photos. :)

    Posted by Stephanie Ernst on 10/29/2009 @ 07:33PM PT

  4. Reply to thread
  5. L. Morales

    There are so many amazing pitties out there that have done nothing but love their owners. Aggression can happen in all dog breeds, but more than likely it's the unfortunate result of an owner not prepared to manage the needs of a dog (dogs are not humans), let alone a strong breed like a Pit Bull. Here's another article on breed-specific legislation http://bit.ly/BreedLegis

    Posted by L. Morales on 10/29/2009 @ 09:42AM PT

  6. Shannon Davis

    I lived in Boulder for 18 months, but I had no idea that Denver's pit bull ban was so cruel and restrictive. This makes my heart hurt. For such a progressive city, Denver is really lagging behind on animal regulation.

    Posted by Shannon Davis on 10/29/2009 @ 10:10AM PT

  7. Isobella Merritts

    It  goes completly over my head how reckless and stupid people can be! There is Nothing wrong with Pit Bulls!!!!  I get so tired and enraged hearing crap about how " dangerous" and " untrustworthy" and " vicous" Pit Bulls, Rottweilers, Dobermans, Akita's , Presa Canario's, Dogo Argentino's, German Shepherds, Chow Chows, and many other breeds are. I grew up with a Pit , German Shepherd, Doberman, Rottweiler, and a Chow all at the same time along with about ten cats. I currently have a German Shepherd/Corgi cross, a Newfoundland/Labrador cross, and a Golden Retriever/Pit/Chow mix who was abused and still to this day sometimes cringes when I raise my hand up to pet him. I would never live in a city that was so hate filled towards a certain breed of dog. I'd move to a hell hole first.

    Posted by Isobella Merritts on 10/29/2009 @ 03:57PM PT

  8. Paul Hockhousen

    God, this article came close to making me cry (which isn't an easy thing).

    How can people be so damn stupid?  So many people are afraid of pit bulls just because.  A lot of people don't even realize that its the fault of the people that abuse them, and has nothing to do with the breed.

    And the fact that they are grabbing any dog that barely resembles a pit bull, and then charging people for the mistake.

    This law needs to be removed, and official appoligies need to be sent out to all the citizens of the city.

    I have to agree Isobella, I've ad, or known people that have, pretty much every single breed that you mention, and they are all sweet, loving dogs.

    I would never live in a city that treated animals this way.

    Posted by Paul Hockhousen on 10/29/2009 @ 04:14PM PT

  9. Tamara Fredriksen

    I have a Staffordshire, Enna, and she is the most loving and sweet baby.  This is an outrage. Is like the Nazi's killing all those innocent people just because they were Jewish...

    WHAT IS WRONG WITH US AS A RACE TO BAN ANOTHER SPECIES???? WE SHARE THE PLANET IN LOVE AND NEED TO SPREAD LOVE NOT FEAR AND HATE

    I will never live in or visit Denver again.

     

    Posted by Tamara Fredriksen on 10/30/2009 @ 06:29PM PT

  10. Tamara Fredriksen

    WHEN WILL WE  STOP SPREADING HATE AND FEAR AND START SPREADING LOVE AND ACCEPTANCE...

    Posted by Tamara Fredriksen on 10/30/2009 @ 06:34PM PT

  11. Ginetta Nistoran

    I have an 11 years old Pit Bull and I always have mixed feelings when strangers are petting my dog saying how mellow and beautiful he is and then their attitude suddenly changes when I tell them that he is a Pit Bull. A lot of people haven't seen in their whole life a Pit Bull, but they are afraid of them because of some stories they hear in the media. 

    Once they are biased, it's hard to tell them that Pit Bulls are not killer machines. The damage is done and it's hard to change their minds.

    It's a shame.  

    Posted by Ginetta Nistoran on 11/02/2009 @ 07:56AM PT

  12. Nan Bongiovanni

    These dogs are so great; they love people, children and yes other animals.  

    I believe that banning this breed of dog has also been pursued due to the lack of true knowledge of the breed.  This really ekes me.  Any dog will display aggression if they feel frightened, threatened and or if the have been abused.  Any Dog Breed!

    It’s hard to believe that the world has come to inhumane individuals.  People that exploit animals to fighting as the same person who would exploit children to ‘whatever’.  It’s ashame for both, but we are talking about dogs right now and they are the best people I know.  Life is all about chance and if anyone body deserves one it’s these innocent babies with paws.  Please give them a chance, we owe it to them. 

    Bless there Hearts…………..Had to say what I feel…. I know all agrees!!! 

    There are no bad dogs, just bad owners!!!!!!!!

    It's a true statemant to say I have more respect for animals then people. At least you know where you stand in the eyes of our furry friends. 

     

     

    Posted by Nan Bongiovanni on 11/02/2009 @ 04:02PM PT

  13. HEIDI ELDRED

    I COMPLETLEY AGREE THAT THERE ARE NO BAD DOS JUST VERY BAD OWNERS

    Posted by HEIDI ELDRED on 11/02/2009 @ 08:43PM PT

    • Report close

      You must be signed in to report content.

    • 1 person likes this comment.   Like
  14. Reply to thread
  15. HEIDI ELDRED

    THIS SO STUPID PEOPLE ARE SO QUICK TO BLAME TE BIG DOGS FOR EVERYTHING WHEN 99% OF THE TIME IT IS THE LITTLE DOGS THAT CAUSE EVERYTHING AND EVEN THE FIGHTING DOGS YOU CAN'T BLAME THEY DIDN'T CHOSE THAT LIFE IT WAS CHOSEN FOR THEM AND IF THEY DON'T MORE THAN LIKELY THEY WOULD BE KILLED BY THEIR OWNER , SO PLEASE DON'T BLAME THESE BEAUTIFUL WONDERFUL DOGS AND DON'T BLAME THE BLAME THE OWNERS,AND I DO AGREE THEIR ARE NOBAD DOGS JUST BAD OWNERS

    Posted by HEIDI ELDRED on 11/02/2009 @ 08:42PM PT

  16. heather merrill

    Dont take it out on the animals, take it out on the humans that abuse or mistreat them.

    Posted by heather merrill on 11/03/2009 @ 10:53AM PT

  17. richard harvey

    shamefull,things like this make feel ashamed to be part of the human race!

    Posted by richard harvey on 11/13/2009 @ 02:30PM PT

  18. sandy wilson

    We need a petition to Denver's city council to explain the obvious, and I think the Dog Wisperer could argue the pit's case effectively.

    Posted by sandy wilson on 11/15/2009 @ 12:02PM PT

  19. Hey Stephanie, I thought you might be interested in what is going on in Lucas County, Oh: the dog warden there has killed about 10,000 pit bulls since 1993. Recently, one of the commissioners tried to oust the dog warden (Tom Skeldon): http://for-the-pits.blogspot.com/2009/11/truth-about-tom-dog-killer-skeldon.html

    The Toledo Blade has been doing a great job covering this story, including posting a daily lost of all the dogs killed and adopted each day (it's painful):

    http://toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20091108/NEWS16/911080323/-1/SRMAIN

    http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20091110/NEWS16/911109982

    http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20091110/OPINION02/911100344

    I don't know the status of it, but there's also a bill that would repeal the current vicious dog label that applies to all pit bulls in the state.

    Posted by Marji Beach on 11/16/2009 @ 10:58AM PT

  20. Penny Gregorio

    I left Denver, Colorado because of there Pit Bull Legislation.

    Posted by Penny Gregorio on 11/18/2009 @ 09:04PM PT

Add a Comment

For your comment to be published, you will need to confirm your email address after submitting your comment.

If you already have an account, click here to log in.

Comments on Change.org are meant for further exploration and evaluation of the ideas covered in the posts. To that end, we welcome constructive comments. However, we reserve the right to delete comments that are offensive, abusive, or off-topic; that contain ad hominem attacks; or that are designed to subvert or hijack comment threads rather than contribute to them. Repeat offenders may be permanently removed from the site at our discretion.

Author
Stephanie Ernst

Stephanie is an independent animal rights advocate, a vegan, a tree-hugging environmentalist, and a freelance editor and writer. She lives in St. Louis with an aging corgi-lab and an adolescent rescued pit bull.

close

This user's Profile page is not public. They have restricted it to only their friends.

Already a Member?

Create an Account

You must create a Change.org account to complete this action.
If you already have an account click here.