Aurora pit bull vote could spur a national trend 

Aurora's vote, the first in the nation on a general-election ballot, could presage other public votes on so-called "breed-specific legislation," laws that either ban some types of dogs or require they be sterilized

ENGLEWOOD |Sharee Talbot wants her dog back. For now, though, she has to drive to Aurora to visit Buddy because the two-year-old pit bull isn’t allowed in her hometown of Aurora.

“Look at him. He’s funny. He’s goofy,” Talbot said on a recent visit with Buddy and his foster family at an Englewood dog park. Talbot had to give up Buddy last year after an Aurora animal control officer seized him for violating city’s ban on pit bulls.

Buddy, Michelle Mayer, Charlie Burton

In this photograph taken on Tuesday, Oct. 14, 2014, a pit bull named Buddy, front, checks camera while caretaker Michelle Mayer, back left, holds leash and 9-year-old Charlie Burton, who's mother rescued the dog when it was on the run in his hometown of Aurora, Colo., looks on at a dog park in the south Denver suburb of Englewood, Colo. Buddy is being cared for in Englewood because of a ban on pit bulls in Aurora. In the November general election, voters will decide whether to repeal Aurora's ban on pit bulls, which has been in place for the past nine years. (AP Photo/David Zalubowski)


In this Tuesday, Oct. 14, 2014 photo, a 2-year-old pit bull named Buddy waits to play at a dog park in the south Denver suburb of Englewood, Colo. Buddy is being cared for in Englewood because of a ban on pit bulls in Aurora, Colo., where the dog lived with his owners. But Buddy's place of residence could change if voters in Aurora consider repealing the ban on pit bulls, which has been in place for the past nine years, in the November general election. (AP Photo/David Zalubowski)

Aurora voters will consider repealing their nine-year-old pit bull ban on November ballots. Talbot is hoping voters ax the ban and allow her to take Buddy home.

“I’d take him home in a heartbeat,” Talbot said.

Aurora’s vote, the first in the nation on a general-election ballot, could presage other public votes on so-called “breed-specific legislation,” laws that either ban some types of dogs or require they be sterilized.

Aurora’s pit bull ban is one of several along the Front Range. Denver, Castle Rock, Commerce City and Louisville are among 700 or so cities nationwide that prohibit pit bulls or other dog breeds deemed a public safety risk.

Pit bulls are getting a warmer reception in recent years, though. Nineteen states now have laws that prohibit communities from banning dog breeds.

Aurora is a rarity for putting the question to a public vote. Aurora officials sent the question to voters after years of fielding complaints that its pit bull ban is unfair and punishes dogs instead of negligent owners.

“We wanted to resolve the question,” Aurora councilman Bob LeGare said. “This issue would just continually come back to us every couple years.”

The vote sets animal activists at odds. Aurora’s animal care division opposes repeal, saying dog bites in the city have gone down since the ban was adopted in 2005.

The Texas-based group DogsBite argues that it’s humane to ban breeds because pit bulls are disproportionately euthanized relative to other breeds.

“Nationwide we euthanize a million pit bulls a year, and the breed takes up a lot of resources in our shelters,” said founder Colleen Lynn, who survived a dog mauling in 2007.

But some animal activists including the American Kennel Club say banning entire dog breeds is less effective than targeting irresponsible dog owners.

“These kinds of breed bans hurt responsible owners more than irresponsible owners,” AKC spokeswoman Lisa Peterson said.

Breed bans have been challenged but upheld in Colorado courts. The state Supreme Court upheld Denver’s pit bull ban in 1991, and a federal court dismissed a challenge to Aurora’s ban in 2009.

A Colorado dog-advocacy group hopes Aurora voters are willing to reconsider pit bulls even if the courts won’t.

ColoRADogs argues that breed bans are aimed more at the types of people likely to own pit bulls, especially minorities, than at the dogs themselves.

ColoRADogs founder Nancy Tranzow pointed out that dog-owners accused of owning pit bulls sometimes have to pay for DNA tests to prove their pet is less than 50 percent pit bull, a burden for dog owners who may have done nothing wrong.

“If you’re incredibly poor and your dog gets picked up, you have to go in and if you can’t afford a DNA test, maybe the dog gets euthanized and there’s nothing you can do about it,” Tranzow said. “People are losing their dogs because of what they look like. It’s not right.”


  • Al

    Pit Bulls dont kill people
    Pit Bull teeth kill people.

  • Yotie

    This vote could really empower other communities into banning this dangerous dog type.

    There is no way BSL is going away in Aurora. Miami Dade kept it by a huge margin. It’s a cheap, effective and easy to enforce way to protect people AND pit bulls.

    Denver euthaniizes less than 100 pit bulls a year. Ask your single, local shelter how many THEY PTS a year. More like 100 a month.

    • YouAreAnIdiotSoIHadToComment

      ‘this dangerous dog type’ clearly demonstrates you know nothing about them and clearly have looked at NO actual scientific data.. the biggest threat regarding these dogs, humans LIKE YOU, perhaps we should decide you are a ‘dangerous human type’ and treat you as you would them

      • MrColorado

        The scientific data shows that more people are killed by pitbulls/pitbull mixes than any other breed. Check out the stats for 2014 (about 3/4 of the way down the page), it’s sickening how many of them are pitbulls:

        • YouAreAnIdiotSoIHadToComment

          Seriously… wikipedia is your source?? try looking at the actual studies and data not something any dog hating person could edit. And are you comparing it to all dog bites? % of attacks by all dogs? % of attacks by breed (which is very very low for pitbulls)

          • KaD
          • MrColorado

            **Show me a study that doesn’t have pitbulls at the top of the list for dog attack fatalities.

            If you read you’ll see that Wikipedia lists fatalities for all breeds and includes extensive references in the footnotes.

            **Even the studies that are pro-pitbull acknowledge that PITBULLS are the #1 breed in fatal attacks.

            Sorry, you can blame the owners, bad breeding, training whatever you want, but the fact remains that PITBULLS kill more people than any other breed in North America. FACT.

          • Jaloney Caldwell

            AMEN to that. Bring Out of the Blue to Colorado so voters can reflect on why this is so important.

          • g_money_stud

            What’s your source? Redneck weekly??LOL

        • KaD
      • Jaloney Caldwell

        I guess idiots like you can’t count coffins filled by pitbulls or consider the parents and families up at night for decades in shock and mourning the loss of a loved one taken away by a pitbull. Nice person you are.. NOT. Humans are animals too and keeping dogs that maul like Lions is not necessary. There are many more suitable pets to choose from.

    • Jaloney Caldwell

      Wondering why the article said this is the first in the nation in a general election. Wasn’t the Miami Dade vote during a general election?

  • Noyd2212

    That doesn’t look like the typical mutt that the call pit bulls

  • Nevada Ames

    These are published, peer-reviewed studies and city records quoted from city officials. Unlike most of the material opposing restrictions on pit bulls, none of these originated from a source with obvious conflict of interest. By no means is this an exhaustive list, but it shows that the “equal treatment for pit bulls” viewpoint is not well supported by a facts-based analysis:

    “Attacks by pit bulls are associated with higher morbidity rates, higher hospital charges, and a higher risk of death than are attacks by other breeds of dogs. Strict regulation of pit bulls may substantially reduce the US mortality rates related to dog bites.”,_Mauling,_and_Maiming_by_Vicious_Dogs.23.aspx

    “When bite rates were determined by breed, Pit Bulls were 5 times more likely to bite than all other breeds combined.”

    “More severe bites and injuries were observed in attacks from the pit-bull and Rottweiler breeds.”

    “More than 30 different offending breeds were documented in the medical records. The most common breeds included pit bull terriers (50.9 percent), Rottweilers (8.9 percent), and mixed breeds of the two aforementioned breeds (6 percent).”

    “A retrospective review was performed at two urban children’s hospitals from 1996-2005 of all dog attacks presenting to the plastic surgery service. Charts were reviewed with analysis of patient demographics, injury site, operative intervention, and dog-specific data…57% of dogs were deemed to be of a dangerous breed (Pit Bull or Rottweiler).”

    “Significantly more pit bull injuries (94% vs 43%) were the consequence of unprovoked attacks.”

    “Of the 199 US dog bite fatalities for which breed is known, pure breed pit bull and pit bull cross breeds were most frequently involved.”

    “It is remarkable that five out of eight fights which led to the death of the victim involved the clearly over-represented group of fighting dogs. Three lethal injuries were caused by American Staffordshire Terriers, one death was caused by a Bull Terrier, and another dog died after a fight with a Pit Bull Terrier.”

    “In attacks where guide dogs were injured, dogs belonging to bull breeds were the most common aggressors (41.5 per cent)…Most injuries to people occurred in attacks involving an aggressor belonging to a bull breed (52.6 per cent).”

    “During the one-year period between June 1986 and June 1987, 14 people were killed by dogs in the United States. Ten of those 14 deaths are attributed to pit bulls. Thus, 71% of the deaths during that period were attributed to a type of dog that accounts for 1% of the US dog population…Most breeds do not repeatedly bite their victims; however, a pit bull attack has been compared to a shark attack and often results in multiple bites and extensive soft tissue loss (3,10)…Pit bulls inflict more
    serious bite wounds than do other breeds because they tend to attack the deep
    muscles, hold on, and shake.”

    “This breed has an intensity and duration of attack not seen in other dogs. This leads to severe injuries and, in some cases, death of the victim (human or animal).”

    “Dog bite injury hospitalization (DBIH) rate in Winnipeg relative to Brandon (a city without BSL) was significantly lower after BSL in people of all ages…Conclusions: BSL may have resulted in a reduction of DBIH in Winnipeg, and appeared more effective in protecting those aged <20 years.”

    “OBJECTIVE: To analyse population-based data on hospitalisation caused by dog bite injuries after changes in legal regulations on dog ownership, including breed-specific regulations…RESULTS: There has been a significant decline in hospitalisation caused by injuries from dog bites.”

    “City data obtained by the Star points to a different possibility: that pit bulls really were the most dangerous kind of dog, in Toronto at least. From 2001 to 2004, pit bulls were more likely to bite people and domestic animals than any other breed, the statistics show…Nearly a decade after the ban was put in place, its purpose appears to have been achieved: pit bull bites in the city have virtually disappeared.”

    “Since the ban has been in place, bites are down 73 percent from pit bulls,” said Cheryl Conway, a spokeswoman for the city’s animal care division. She added that the dogs placed a tremendous burden on city staff. According to city documents, before the ordinance was enacted in 2005, up to 70 percent of kennels in the Aurora Animal Shelter were occupied by pit bulls with pending court disposition dates or with no known owner. That number is now only 10 to 20 percent of kennels. “There hasn’t been a human mauling in many years. Complaints and requests related to pit bulls are down 50 percent. Euthanasia of pit bull dogs is down 93 percent.”

    “According to statistics taken from the Springfield-Greene County Health Department…for the three-year period beginning in 2004, there were 42 "vicious" animal attacks recorded in the jurisdiction covered. After passing the local ordinance banning or strictly controlling the ownership of pit bull or pit bull types, the number of attacks has dropped dramatically. For the five-year period from 2007-2011, there was a total of 14.”

    “Between 2009 and 2010, there were 233 reported incidents involving pit bull attacks against people and other dogs in Anne Arundel County. In that same time frame, the next closest breeds, German shepherds and Labrador retrievers, caused just 93 incidents combined. According to Lt. Glenn Shanahan of Anne Arundel County Animal Control, pit bull terriers lead all other breeds in the county by at least two to one when it comes to attacks over the last five years. “The numbers say what they say. We’re not making it up,” Shanahan said. “It’s demonstrably overwhelming.”

    In regards to the myth that visual identification of pit bulls is not possible or reliable, a DNA test study funded by the ASPCA [the only such study performed on pit bull-type dogs] showed that 96% of the 91 dogs visually categorized as pit bulls or pit bull mixes, when DNA tested for breed, were indeed pit bulls or pit bull mixes:

  • Nevada Ames

    Per the city’s own data, euthanasia of pit bulls dropped by 93 percent since the law went into effect. Pit bull attacks are down 73 percent. Complaints about pit bulls have been cut in half.

    It’s a similar story in Denver, where pit bulls have been regulated since 1989. A 2014 study published in the Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science found that Denver’s dog euthanasia rates fell by 77 percent after the city enacted its pit bull law. Instead of drowning in a flood of unwanted pit bulls, Denver shelters are able to save almost every homeless dog that comes through the door.

    In cities where pit bulls aren’t regulated, they make up one to two thirds of all dogs in shelters. It’s estimated that more than one million of them are euthanized every year. But thanks to its pit bull law, Denver appears to be killing fewer pit bulls than any other major city.

    Preferring to keep lawmakers and the public in the dark, pit bull lobbyists circulate an image of pit bulls that’s all sweetness and light. Amongst themselves, however, they readily admit that these dogs are risky. Organizations including the ASPCA admit that aggression toward other animals is typical for pit bulls. Pit bull fanciers have praised the breed’s “gameness” for decades — gameness being a euphemism for “won’t let go no matter what.” The vast majority of deadly dog-on-dog attacks involve pit bulls.

    Pit Bull Rescue Central and many other groups quietly recommend “break sticks” to all pit bull owners. A break stick is a tool designed to pry open a pit bull’s jaws in the event of an attack. No other dog requires special jaw-prying tools.

    Pit bull advocates even promote a “crate and rotate” strategy to keep a pit bull from killing the other pets it lives with. “Crate and rotate” turns homes into supermax prisons where only one pet can be allowed out of its cage at a time.

    Let’s break that down: Pit bull lobbyists are asking Aurora to remove proven effective regulations on pit bulls, while fully acknowledging that pit bulls are “typically” aggressive to other animals, require physical force and special tools to stop their attacks, and cannot even be trusted with their own housemates.

    Are you kidding me?

    Don’t confuse pit bull lobbyists with animal lovers. Pit bull lobbyists are not animal advocates. They are members of an extraordinarily self-centered special interest group intent on deregulating pit bulls regardless of the astronomical costs to humans, animals, and pit bulls themselves.

    • Jaloney Caldwell

      They also intimidate law makers with petitions, and social media numbers that are often just bought. Law makers need to learn that you can pay “services” very small amounts of money for facebook and petition likes and even comments. The noise the “advocates” show via social media can easily be someone in Asia. The paid services allow the buyer to even stipulate what location the likes come from. This is one method they use to trick politicans. It is not because everyone loves pitbulls, it is because starving people in third world countries will stay online and make accounts and like pages for a very small sum of money.

  • MrColorado

    The stats speak for themselves. Of course, there are good pitbulls, but way too many are involved in maulings. Often with children or the elderly. And it’s always the same old story with the owners saying that their pitbull “never did anything like that before”.

    • Jaloney Caldwell

      Noone can predict which pitbulls will go nuts. Animal biologists have identified latent genes in pitbulls that suddenly and silently activate causing neurological problems. Owning a pitbull is Russian Roulette with community safety. There is no way to determine which pitbulls carry the genes or why they mutate. The presence of the genes can only be determined by an examination of their brains after death. A man in Detroit survived a pitbull attack a few weeks ago and lost BOTH hands and BOTH feet. He can’t turn off the alarm, get a drink of water, walk, use a remote, nothing. We can’t let dogs do this to human beings. The owner was not charged as he “didn’t know the dogs would do this.” Colorado speak loud for the nation, KEEP THE BAN.

      • Educated American

        You bring up these “animal biologists” an awful lot on multiple articles, but I have not yet once seen an actual source provided.

      • Guest

        Oh, and Colorado is not speaking loudly enough… State after state has made BSL illegal. It is looking like Washington may be the newest state of 2015 continuing the trend!

  • Linda Hart

    Here are the facts on dog bites in Colorado, and they do not support a breed ban. Too much of what is being fed to the public is inaccurate and based in hype and fearmongering. Any dog can bite and do. Pit bulls (a generic term for several breeds commonly banned) are not the #1 biting breed in Colorado, labs have that honor! The results of the 2008 and 2012 study I
    refer to can be seen on the Colorado Veterinary Medical Assoc (CVMA)
    site at This independent study was requested and
    supported by the CVMA and the Colorado Animal Control Officers Assn
    among other professional associations in Colorado. The results if you
    wish to link directly are at

    I can also post the link to the original 130 page study done in 2008 if
    you wish, but this gives a synopsis with updated supporting
    information. This report shows Labs to be the #1 breed to bite in
    Colorado. It also shows no correlation of breed to severity of bite. The Public Safety packet given to the city council members in the study session on
    2/4/14 also show much of the information supporting such bans are inaccurate and not based on fact. The links to that information can be seen in an article from the Piccone Law Firm at This shows that Colorado animal control officers, the Colorado Veterinary
    Medical Association as well as other animal professional groups in the state, as well as an attorney saying that breed bans don’t work, but good education of the public and dog owners does. Aurora’s bite stats went UP after the ban, not down per their own stats which can be seen in the 2/4/14 report referenced above. Why not address the real issue of preventing dog bites through education and a proper dangerous dog law. There are about 400 different breeds of dog in the U.S. and Aurora only protects you from 2-3 of those biting you? Look at the facts above please and vote to repeal this ineffective and negative ban. Education of the public on responsible dog ownership and effective enforcement of a good dangerous dog law are substantially more effective in preventing bites. It is a problem of ignorant or neglectful dog owners of any breed.

    • Nevada Ames

      That study actually supports the idea that pit bull-type dogs are disproportionately dangerous. 22 different breeds were involved in 58 mauling incidents. 28 percent of those mauling incidents involved pit bull terriers and an additional 10 percent involved American bulldogs, a pit bull-type dog. The study does not give information about how many maulings were attributable to pit bull mixes or Staffordshire terriers (an alternate name for a pit bull dog). So although 22 breeds were involved in maulings, at least 38% of the serious incidents arose from just two pit bull-type breeds.

      • Linda Hart

        Nevada Ames did you even read the study that I posted?? None of what you say is from this report. The study included mixes in the stats for the breed listed first on the bite reports being referenced in that report. I attended the conference where this report was presented in 2008 as well as 2012. The Staffordshire Terrier is not an alternate name for a ‘pit bull’, it is a breed itself. Pitbull is a slang term for these two breeds. To set the facts from this study straight, 165 different breeds were identified as biting per the statics collected, not 22 as you say inaccurately. This report covered 11,484 bite incidents collected in the Colorado reporting area (mainly front range agencies) over a 5 year period as reported by animal control officers. Of the estimated population of dogs in the reporting area (952,177 est) only 0.2% of the dog population has bitten anyone. Of all reported dog bites, pit bulls only accounted for 9.35%, with
        labs being first in biting with 11.29%. So, do you want to ban labs
        also? If you use the study figures, it means out of nearly 1 million dogs in the study area, 191 dogs bit someone and of those dogs less than 18 dogs were identified as pitbulls. 18 biting pitbulls out of nearly 1 million dogs including pit bulls in the study. For 18 bad dogs and owners we are killing thousands of good dogs who have done nothing wrong. What logic can you honestly use to support such a law that does such damage to dog owners who have done nothing wrong? Please read the referenced study before you comment with more misinformation as you did on my post. And by the way, I do not own a pit bull or related breed. I use to own dobermans in the mid-70’s when that breed was the “evil” dog of the day and have worked with many dogs/owners, good and bad, over the years in classes and as well as private training. I have bred, shown and trained dogs for about 40 years and just dislike laws that damage people and their pets, than resolve the true issues. Education is the key, not breed bans.

        • Nevada Ames

          Did YOU even read the study you posted? Clearly you did not. The numbers I quoted were taken directly from the “Key Findings” document on the website you posted.

          Breed-specific legislation is not intended to prevent bites, it is intended to reduce the number of severe attacks (maulings). 22 breeds were involved in the 58 mauling incidents tracked by this study. Pit bulls led the group at 28%, compared to 15% for German shepherds. Just two breeds — both pit bull-type dogs — accounted for at least 38% of maulings.

          • Linda Hart

            So Nevada, the person who is bitten just a ‘little’ is less important as a bite victim? I personally think that ALL bites are important since if left unresolved those dogs will bite again, maybe more severely the next time. Please don’t take one stat from a full paper and try to make an argument. With your logic I would ban all neutered male dogs since they account for 35% of all bites. The research papers conclusion states that there is, “Not enough information to draw a conclusion whether one breed is more or less likely to bite.” Please people, read the report for yourselves before you make an important vote on this issue. Education is the key to this issue, not breed bans. THAT is per the experts on dog bite issues in this report.

          • Nevada Ames

            Are you seriously trying to argue that being severely mauled by a dog DOESN’T matter more than being scratched or nipped? On what planet do you spend most of your time?

            The study concluded that pit bull terriers were involved in 28% of maulings, which was twice as often as the next highest breed. Two pit bull-type breeds were involved in 38% of maulings. Just two breeds, out of hundreds of breeds and mixes, were responsible for at least 38% of all severe attacks. It’s obvious that pit bulls aren’t anywhere close to being one quarter to one third of the dog population yet they were involved in one quarter to one third of all mauling incidents in this study. Multiple peer-reviewed studies (I posted several earlier) have concluded that pit bulls were involved in a significant percentage — and in most cases, the majority — of severe attacks.

          • Linda Hart

            So I will support the statistics based on animal knowledge (veterinarians, behaviorists, animal control officers and animal welfare agencies) who did a through study based on Colorado information, and concluded the right way to prevent dog bites (ANY dog bite) is through education of dog owners and the public. You miss the point that a dog biting at a lower level will become a dog that bites more seriously without EDUCATION of the owner as to how to prevent that behavior. ANY dog can bite, even bite severely. When you speak of ‘pit bull type dogs’ are you speaking of bully, mastiff or molossar breeds? If you knew the answer to that question you would also know that there are numerous breeds, some guard type breeds and some not, closely related to the dogs you call pit bulls. Cana Corso, Presa Canario, American Bulldog (not a pit bull as defined in the law), Boerboel, Dogue de Bordeaux, Old English Bulldog, Minature Bull Terrier (whom I have never heard of biting anyone) Mastiff, Bullmastiff, Tibetian Mastiff, Leonberger, Rottweiler, even the Bulldog and Miniature Bull Terrier (fondly called the clown of the dog world) and about 50 more breeds, not counting the mixes of any one of these breeds, that can fit into your definition. And mixes make up most of the dogs labeled ‘pit bulls’ in shelters. So which part of that mix in dogs biting is responsible for the bite, the lab or the poodle or the pit bull? Isn’t it a better approach to educate and stop the cycle of bad or ignorant owners who perpetuate bad behavior in their dogs? You take a biting dog away from an owner, he says he’s sorry and goes out to get another dog almost immediately and by treating that dog in the same way creates another biting dog. Why not put that owner into education, for dog and owner, where the behavior can be changed and the cycle of biting dogs can be stopped. Just like child abuse, dog bites are created by a cycle of ignorance or abuse that can only be stopped by stopping it at the source which is the HUMAN in the equation. Education does work and has been shown to be an effective way to stop ALL dog bites of any severity. Englewood is a city with NO ban, but it has a good dangerous dog law with provisions to allow for early identification/tracking of potential problem dogs and owners, as well as court ordered training/education classes for offenders. It is an excellent solution that has worked for over 7 years now, and has many of the pit bulls living in it that were forced to either be killed or leave Denver and Aurora. They and their owners are good citizens and are welcomed. Again, ANY dog can bite and good bite prevention is based on education not breed bans.

          • MrColorado

            Training and education is a pipe dream. There are way too many bad owners. Other breeds have bad owners, but they don’t attack at the rate PITBULLS do. Then there is the other little inconvenience that PITBULLS often attack until the victim is maimed or DEAD. They are fighting dogs.

          • Linda Hart

            Really? A pipe dream in your mind maybe, but it has worked for numerous communities across the US and Canada. Calgary, Canada is about the same size as Denver, but has no problem with dog bites or really many dog issues Aurora struggles with, and has no breed ban. It does have excellent citizen education and a good dangerous dog law. Englewood right here in the metro area has no breed ban, but a good dangerous dog law and lots of pit bulls with no problems. Multinoma county in Oregon has a good dangerous dog law, low bite stats and no breed ban. Education and fair laws that focus on the real issues needing attention DO work. If Aurora citizens will repeal the ban and let let education and proper enforcement have a chance, it will make a big difference.

          • g_money_stud

            A dog owner is facing charges after a pit bull attack in southeast Calgary last week left a woman with serious injuries to her face.

            The incident took place on Sept. 18 at about 7:30 a.m., according to the City of Calgary animal and bylaw services.

            Officers were called to a home in Radisson Heights following reports a woman had been bitten by a dog.

            The pit bull is now in custody with animal and bylaw services and will undergo an assessment, following a mandatory 10-day quarantine.

          • Linda Hart

            Site your sources “Stud” if you want to be credible. Too many times a dog is ‘identified’ as a pit bull by the press when it is another breed, so sources and links are important as well as dates to establish time frames.

          • Jaloney Caldwell
          • g_money_stud

            CALGARY- A serious attack by a pit bull that sent a woman to hospital for emergency surgery has resulted in charges.

            Rafah Bakour was walking her daughter to the school bus in the community of Falconridge around 7:30 on Tuesday morning, when a dog that was at large attacked her. It bit her on both of her legs, and when Bakour fell the dog attacked her eyes and face.

            She suffered multiple puncture wounds and had to undergo surgery on her eyes at the Foothills Hospital. Animal & Bylaw Services seized the dog, and have since laid multiple charges against its owner. The pit bull is being put do

          • g_money_stud

            Mounties say a fugitive Sundre woman sicced her two pitbulls on a Calgarian who nearly died in the ensuing attack last weekend.

            Rita Phillip, 57, is facing a charge of aggravated assault after a 26-year-old Calgary woman was savagely attacked by the pair of dogs early Saturday in a home in the Sundre Mobile Estates Park.

            Phillip caused the attack on the woman who suffered extreme injuries to her arms, face and has lost an ear, said RCMP Insp. Frank Smart.

            “She was responsible for the attack on the victim,” he said.

            “Our evidence has indicated this individual was in the residence with the victim and her actions led to the dogs attacking the victim.”

          • Linda Hart

            People problem don’t you think? The dogs only did as told by the FUGITIVE owner.

          • g_money_stud

            Calgary police have laid charges after two separate dog attacks on children over the weekend.

            The first attack happened on Saturday, when police were called to reports that a pit bull had attacked a three-year-old at a home in Sunnyside.

            “There were four young people (ages three, six, 14 and 17) as well as the dog owner in the backyard at the time of the incident. As the dog owner turned to go inside, the dog attacked and bit the child,” said Alvin Murray, Acting Director for Animal & Bylaw Services, in a release.

          • g_money_stud

            CALGARY – An Airdrie family has been left heartbroken after a dog attack on Saturday that killed their beloved pet.

            The Giesbrecht’s dog Barkley, a cockapoo, was attacked after he approached another dog on a busy residential street.

            “I was out for a jog, and my wife called me,” explained Kirk Giesbrecht. “She was pretty hysterical so I started running quicker towards home. I hung up the phone thinking I could run a little faster if I didn’t talk. And then she called back right away saying Barkley was getting mauled by a pit bull.”

          • g_money_stud

            Calgary owner of ‘pitbull-type’ dogs sought after poodle killed

            Dogs were on leash when one grabbed the poodle, biting and shaking it

            CBC News Posted: Jul 15, 2014 2:42 PM MT Last Updated: Jul 15, 2014 2:42 PM MT


            Related Stories

            Sundre woman guilty of assault for ordering dog attack

            Calgary owner charged after dog bites child

            Dog that attacked Calgary woman to be euthanized

            Calgary Animal and Bylaw Services is asking for the public’s help in locating the owner of two dogs involved in a fatal attack on a poodle.

            Officials say a woman was walking her toy poodle on Templehill Drive N.E. on Saturday at about 9:30 a.m. MT when another woman approached with her two dogs, which are described as “pitbull-type” dogs.

            The dogs were on leash when the owners allowed the three dogs to greet each other. One of the large dogs then grabbed the poodle, biting and shaking it.

            A neighbour came to help and the poodle was taken from the attacking dog but died a short time later at a local vet.

          • g_money_stud

            A Calgary police officer shoot and killed a pit bull in the community of Dover early Thursday morning.

            Someone in a home on Dovertree Place S.E. called 911.

            When two police officers arrived at the front door the woman who opened the door was holding on to the dog by the collar.

            However, the dog got away and lunged at one of the officers and that’s when the officer shot the dog.

            The officer, who was attacked by the pit bull, received minor injuries.

            The body of the dog was removed several hours later from the home.

            Read more:

          • Linda Hart

            Gee, article also says the person living at the home was arrested at the same time on outstanding warrants. Do you think this is a good dog owner who obeys any laws?

          • g_money_stud

            CALGARY – A bylaw official says charges could be laid against both dog owners after a vicious attack in which three pit bulls killed a dog and injured another in an off-leash park.

            Doug Anderson, co-ordinator for Calgary’s animal and bylaw services, says that while it was the pit bulls that did the damage, they were on a leash at the time and were approached by two dogs that were running free.

          • Linda Hart

            Who at fault? The pit bulls on leash, or the dogs loose running up to the leashed dogs? My choice is the owner of the unleashed so illegal dogs.

          • g_money_stud

            So education is working in Calgary Canada? Calgary has no problems with dogbites? I think you were thinking of Winnipeg, Canada. No dog problems there. They have had a ban on pitbulls since 1990.

          • Nevada Ames

            “Calgary, Canada is about the same size as Denver, but has no problem with dog bites..”

            Really? Reports of dog bites in Calgary have quadrupled, and pit bulls are the city’s worst offenders.

          • Linda Hart

            Finally Nevada you provided something useful. I see nothing in this article that states “pit bulls are the city’s worst offenders” though. The article lists numerous breeds higher in the discussion and actually identifies several dogs involved in the news article posted by “Stud” and misidentified as pit bulls. But, to be fair to the city and the news article and “Stud”, I will call Calgary and find out the exact issues involved, and what has been done in the past year to correct any issues. I’ll post back to this site when I get answers.

          • Jaloney Caldwell

            Are you blind? Calgary has a serious problem with pitbull attacks!!

          • Jaloney Caldwell

            And we have a lot more pressing social problems to address and limited tax dollars. We can’t spend it training people who won’t follow common sense anyways, and training can’t undo the fact that able bodied men .. even several able bodied men, can’t stop a pitbull that suddenly attacks. Kids, and woman are not able to defend themselves.

          • Carli Webb

            The issue is not preventing dog bites. The issue is preventing maimings and killings. Pit bull advocates are always minimizing the issue by bringing up stats about bites. To borrow an old phrase, “Dog bites man” is not news; “Dog rips arm off 8-year old girl” is.

          • Linda Hart

            I refer you back to what I’ve already said Carli. If you can’t accept facts as they are then nothing will make a difference to you and reality will not matter. Sorry can’t help you any more than that.

          • Cristina

            Pea brain…

          • Jaloney Caldwell

            Nothing is more effective than banning the dogs that do the most damage the most often. There is a reason we ban dynamite and don’t allow everyone to use it. We ban it for the greater good of all. What about the research that contradicts these studies?

          • Jaloney Caldwell

            Okay then you want to ban mosquitos is that what you are saying? ALL bites are not serious .. Pitbulls don’t BITE. Education.. yeah like teaching kids to be responsible for your dogs? Heck no. Breed bans keep the dogs out of the dog fighters rings and that is who spends a fortune to pay “celebs” to peddle the breed on t.v. They know their crimes are kept safe in a sea of pitbulls and finding a dog fighter in areas without bans is like trying to find a needle in a haystack. Pitbull promoters keep promoting the breed on t.v. even when we are putting down a million unwanted pitbulls a year. Pitbulls are choking shelters and still they are sterilized and spayed less than all other dogs. Even with grant money offering free and low cost spay and neutering the pitbull owners do not take advantage of the resources. They continue to breed the dogs for quick cash. Dog fighters started to promote the breed when dog fighting was made illegal. We have been down this road before with big tobacco advertsing that duped the majority of Americans into smoking. Pitbull advocacy is about MONEY and lots of it. The roots of the advocacy and the end result do not help protect pitbulls from dog fighting and overbreeding. Even ASPCA with their sad song late night commercials is a sham. CNN did an investigation and found that the organization took in millions and only spent 60 K on helping pets. Follow the money$$$$$$$$$$$$$

          • MrColorado

            Linda, You continue to ignore the overwhelming stats that show that PITBULLS kill more people than any other breed. Why, because you know that the stats are true, DON’T YOU? Sorry, PITBULLS are not worth it.

        • g_money_stud

          You are really reaching Linda. Percentage of dog bites is often misleading. Percentage of attacks, maulings, maims, and kills are the stats that people care about. And Pitbulls are #1 in all those categories by a long shot. Almost 80% of the dog bite related fatalities in the last 2 years have been pitbull attacks. @ Staffordshire Terriers are legally pitbulls.

          • Linda Hart

            I will refer you back to the Colorado study.

          • Jaloney Caldwell

            Probably a study conducted and paid for by the bogus organization that is really a poltical lobby and propaganda machine.. the ridiculous National Canine resource council..

          • Linda Hart

            Read the post and link Jaloney. Done and supported by the Colorado Veterinary Medical Association, Colorado Association of Animal Control Officers, Colorado Federation of Animal Welfare Assn,, Colorado Veterinary Technician Assn, Denver Metro Shelter Alliance and more. And the final study was overseen by the University of Colorado. Not ridiculous at all.

          • Jaloney Caldwell

            It doesn’t matter if certain people SUPPORT a law. That doesn’t negate the fact that pitbulls are mutilating and killing the greatest number of people and pets. People across the nation carry knives and weapons now to defend their pets as pitbulls are regularly killing pets, often in front of children who are traumatized to learn that mom and dad can’t protect them or their pets. Big tobacco had a lot of support, too. So? How is it that people that have no financial interests in the matter have a completely different opinion on pitbulls, just like the dichotomy between doctors and big tobacco we saw in the past? Oh and the victims, you have failed to mention the fact that the vicitms that face multiple surgeries after a pitbull attack have to wait years to recover a dime, if they are successful at all, so the costs of these pitbull maulings fall on the victims and the tax payers who support national health insurance programs. Renters who own pitbulls can’t be sued. This country values justice and personal responsibility. How is it okay to ask a driver to be at least 16 but kids are walking pitbulls down the street? And drivers need insurance so the possible victims of irresponsible behavior can be helped with their medical bills, but the victims of pitbulls are left high and dry? Anyone can see the hundreds of pitbull victims left to beg on internet fundraising sites, and local churches do fundraisers, but it is a drop in the bucket. Obviously my mind is made up. We need to put humans back in our decisions about HUMANE treatment of animals as humans are animals too. Pitbulls were bred for evil and they carry latent genes for neurological problems that can activate at anytime turning a loving pitbull into a mean and relentless killing machine. Remember Darla Napora? The pregnant pitbull advocate killed by her sweet raised from a puppy pitbull that was loved, well mannered and neutered. No excuses, people sometimes have to be protected for their own good and because some people are not wise enough to make intelligent choices. There are hundreds of other dogs to choose from that make more suitable pets. There is absolutely no need to keep the dog fighters paraphenilia breeding. Too bad you waste your time and energy on trying to legalize a dangerous dog breed when you could be saving hungry children, fighting homelessness, crime, or helping to educate children that need extra help.

          • Linda Hart

            Why can renters not be sued if their dog (whatever breed) bites someone? Never heard that one before. I don’t accept your statement that ‘humans are animals too”. I think people are above animals, and we have a responsibility to humanely care for animals as well as train them how to behave in our communities for our safety and theirs. It’s called responsible dog ownership. I do not believe dogs are little people, nor do I believe all pit bulls are sweet and harmless, as any dog can bite and that includes pit bulls. I also do not condone or tolerate dogs that bite people or other animals. But I know from experience in working with dogs for many years that any large dog needs to be respected, and not everyone should own a large dog. Not everyone should own a chihuahua either. Part of the education factor in choosing the right dog for you. I do not feel I’m wasting my time on this issue since it affects many people and dogs who have done nothing wrong, yet they are targeted by unfair laws. I care about those dog owners, as well as the person who may be bitten by a non-banned breed while animal control officers are busy answering banned breed calls elsewhere in the city. Not a good solution to the problem and time to repeal it.

          • Jaloney Caldwell

            That is the problem Linda Hart you are misinformed on many of the critical issues. You never heard that renters can’t be sued for dog bites? You can’t sue the landlords. They are not liable. Claims against homeowners are still a long shot that take years to settle. There are hundreds of people left out in the cold with their lives suddenly changing. Animal control officers in towns without bsl are answering calls about pitbulls 24/7 and often the shelters get so sick of the overbred pitbulls, they fudge the truth and cover up aggression in dogs in attempts to get them adopted. It is great to love animals but you have many gaps in your knowledge. Of course people bitten by a non banned breed are important too, but the people in intensive care or worse with no legal recourse for justice or recovery of all that they have lost, including their ability to work are in dire need of the attention and support of citizens like you that have not gotten the full facts on the problem. Just as you addressed Calgary Canada as a place that had it together and were unaware of the problems they are experiencing with serious pitbull attacks. It is the norm for governments to cover up pitbulls attacks. They don’t want to face the problem so they ignore it. A man in Detroit recently lost both his hands and his feet to a pitbull attack. The prosecutor won’t even bring charges against the owner. Bad owners get a free pass, maybe a handslap fine of 20 dollars when someone else loses their ability to get out of bed, turn off the alarm, go the bathroom, work, eat, use the remote, walk a dog, dress themselves. Yes this issue effects some people who have done nothing wrong but your logic is lacking. There are many drinkers who don’t drink and drive but we still limit consumption to liscensed establishements or homes, and restrict use of the drug if you are driving, and restrict how old you must be to use this drug. This is for the greater good of all. People screamed about how they were being discriminated against when they were told they could not smoke in public, too. We all have to make concessions for the greater good of all. Banning pitbulls is for the greater good of all: it prevents dog fighting, reduces gang related violence, stops the overbreeding of pitbulls so the rape stands are put away, it stops the relentless euthanizations of pitbulls. Even PETA is for bans on pitbulls as they realize that pitbulls are abused and overbred nationwide. Why would Aurora want to contribute to the one million unwanted pitbulls that are euthanized annually? More pitbulls are overbred and euthanized at the publics expense than any other dog. This is not happening because of BSL, it is happening because there is a lack of BSL. Go to any neighboring town and go on craiglist and find scores of ads from people who took in a pitbull who lost interest and now want to sell it or give it away. And explain why pitbull owners spay and neuter their dogs the least even when progams exist to get the dog fixed for free or nearly free all over the country. The fact is, the pitbull advocacy groups have failed enourmously. They have complained about bsl for over two decades and did nothing to bring down the overbreeding or increased serious maulings by pitbulls. They have done nothing to help punish bad owners or stop the need for unending euthanizations of the dogs. Any true animal advocate is for bsl. Any true animal advocate can go and see that underneath so many of the so called advocates are people who breed the dogs and sell them in or out of state. They don’t care about the dogs, they care about money. We have been down this road with big tobacco using t.v. to sell cigerettes on the public. Animal control officers are not busy answering calls to banned breeds and animal control officers in other cities without bsl are regularly calling in the police for back up as they can’t control pitbulls like they can other dogs. I just don’t how your knowledge of the problem could be so isolated and so many facts are left out of arguments. The problem of pitbulls killing 95 percent of all other domesticated farm animals and pets is another problem. Facebook groups and angry and grieving senior citizens are shell shocked as pitbulls kill their small pets. Some people have lost three pets in succession to pitbull attacks. Your arguments do not hold water. Its like saying my Lion did not attack anyone so it shouldn’t be banned. Dog fighters told people for generations these dogs did not make good pets, It was only after dog fighting was made illegal did they change their stance and try to sell the dogs on the public to hide their organized untaxed crime. You have been duped. Consider the fact that pitbull victims are put on air helicopters. life flights in efforts to save their lives more often than car accident victims. This is not a bite. Get back with reality. You don’t need to get your head ripped off or watch helplessly as a family member is shredded to get it.

          • Linda Hart

            Sorry Jaloney, you have no idea of my background on this issue. I do think that my 40 years of first hand experience working with dogs of all breeds and sizes might give me a little knowledge to work with. And the 23 years of working with cities and state law makers on animal related legislation might also contribute a little. But I read your comments and am sad to see someone so rabid against a dog and the people who own them. These people only want to be allowed to be part of the community and prove themselves to be responsible dog owners and good neighbors. Do you really think that the dog fighters care is there is a ‘breed ban’ or not in Aurora? They are defying the state law that makes dog fighting a felony right now anyway, so it makes no difference to them one way or the other. They are not the ones who love their dogs and would do anything to keep them safe in their homes. But people like you who have no knowledge of dogs or dog breeds just want to hate something you truly know nothing about. I find that sad.

          • Jaloney Caldwell

            I find it sad that you don’t look around the country and see that pitbull owners have tried to PROVE that they can be responsible dog owners and have failed miserably. All the experience in the world doesn’t help anyone who ignores reality. If they love dogs so much why did they not choose one of the hundreds of unbanned breeds? You are probably a paid pigeon. Every victims story is denied and not addressed. Not one. Children are growing up looking like war victims in this country that are so horribly mutilated beyond repair because of someone’s pitbull and you want families to take that chance. These children will be mocked, shunned and will suffer lifetimes of loneliness. You deny that the majority of pitbull maulings happen to woman and children and that the majority of pitbull maulings occur in family homes where the dogs were loved and owned by responsible dog owners. Rita Pepe died last year when the neutered pitbull that passed all the humane societies temperament tests, burst out the door immediately after the adult male owner was done walking it, and immediately went to attack a friend of the owner, an elderly woman walking, Rita Pepe. Pitbull accidents thrown under the rug and denied by you are called HUMAN BEINGS. You make me sick. Do not respond to me anymore. There is a thing called Karma and its coming for you. What you are doing is no different than denying the carnage caused by drunk drivers. You are only showing how relentlessly you defend the dogs and the people who want to own them and put their WANTS above the publics NEED for pubic safety.

          • Linda Hart

            LOL! Never been called a “paid pigeon” before! Not even sure what that is! I won’t bother you with the truth anymore Jaloney since you will just continue to rant on and nothing will change your mind or lead to a civil conversation on the issue. Hope life treats you well.

          • Marisa Nordstrom

            Linda Hart, I read and read and read and Jaloney Caldwell just can’t get you to show any concern for the victims of pitbull fatalities, let alone the gruesome life of reconstructive surgery in the 1,000s of pit maulings, let alone the brutal maulings on pets while the pit and his handler scurry off and wipe the blood off. You’re a pit pusher, knowing full well most people are obese, they work all day, they’re addicted to pizza and TV, they want families, and they won’t spend any quality time with the pit dog learning how to love and dominate and control a pit, provide strong high fences (most are stuffed in small apartments), provide vet care. In many cases you end up with the overindulged pit to compensate for what he should be getting. Overindulged pits are far more likely to blow than dominated pits (as Cesar Millan). Most people Shelters shove their pits out the door with cannot even walk this dog in public because of it’s strength. A strong golden is one thing, but a strong pit (if he gets loose) that’s a deadly marauding beast. You just won’t look at why people want the breed ban.

          • Jaloney Caldwell

            Look at the victims look at the victms look at the victims. Look at the faces, the lost scalps, the loss of arms, eyes, ears, the little girl in Ohio that lost her tongue and her ability to speak at the age of five for the rest of her life. The doctors don’t need pitbulls for their livelihood. They have many other issues to help people with from the beauty industry to birth defects and they are shocked and horrified by the tissue loss in pitbull maulings and they keep telling the public they have NEVER seen anything like these maulings and there is so much loss of flesh, bone and muscle they can’t fix the victims. Like a bear mauling, not a bite. Not a bite. NOT A BITE!

          • MrColorado

            Which breed has killed more people than any other in the last 20 years, Linda? PITBULL.

          • Marisa Nordstrom

            There is not one organization that you have named that does not follow the money… and there is the herd mentality. Pit bulls are creating a lot of jobs for vets (the cost to clean up after pit attacks is horrendous, and the victim usually dies, but the bill does not). Why are plastic surgeons not on that list or hospital ER admin. agents?) ASPCA and Humane Society suck up so much money from pit propagandists. Their shelters would be reduced in numbers and emptied out if pits went away, and they would be taken off the government budgets for running our shelters. Menial jobs for some, but good money and bad boy celebrity for running good boy shelters. Go on line and look at the endless pit rescuers crying for donations. This is the age for pitty the pit. Look at the shameless Michael Vick pit rescue couple that came right out and said this was a propaganda moment to be seized in publicizing the attempt to rehome Vick’s fighting dogs. How much money do you think they raised?

          • MrColorado

            That study does not indicate what you’re trying to say it does. If pitbulls were not a problem breed they would NOT be constantly the news.

          • Linda Hart

            MrColorado I don’t know how many more ways the study could have said it! Another links to the CONCLUSIONS of the study that maybe even you can read. I quote, …”IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO CALCULATE THE BITE PROCLIVITY FOR ANY BREED WITHOUT AN ACCURATE CENSUS OF THE DOG POPULATION BY BREED, WHICH DOES NOT EXIST” end quote.

          • MrColorado

            Your quote means nothing. All one has to do is look in the newspaper. Every time there is a fatal dog attack, which breed comes to mind? PITBULL. There is a reason for that. It’s because we’ve all seen it over and over. I get that you like PITBULLS and I assume have never been attacked. That’s the same story as all the victims out there. In Denial and making excuses for the breed until their 3 year has it’s face ripped off. Instead of continuing the cycle why don’t you just get a collie? I can guarantee you it will be 10x smarter, no so ridiculously stubborn, and a lot more fun. Not to mention it won’t rip the face off your kids. Good luck Linda.

        • Marisa Nordstrom

          Confusing the “breed” is a common devious method of skewing the numbers to favor of pit pushers. Courts have easily dealt with that breed ID nonsense. Read the City of Yakima (1989) case enforcing its pit type dog ban, quoting from other decisions. Quit the crap lady, it gets old. Pits are so common a mosquito can identify one. Even when pits attack others and their owners identify their own dog as a pit, the pit pushers deny the owner’s claims. Pit pushers are stupid, relentless liars. They’re aggressive and select for a breed that creates drama, intimidates, and stirs it up. It’s a lazy way to create an identity. Their numbers grow through their mutual persecution cult. They really are a cult.

    • KaD
      • MrColorado


        • Linda Hart

          So, your source for your belief KaD is a “blog” by a person who hates pit bulls, and it’s source is an anti-pit bull online newsletter gathering information from those who read the anti-pit bull newsletter and send comments. Please think about that.

    • Jaloney Caldwell

      we are not talking about bites. Very deceptive and stupid to think people can’t look past the biased “research”. By the way, Vets are making a small fortune off the maulings of pitbulls. Funny those who are not in animal related professions, like Plastic surgeons are very outspoken against pitbulls as they have never seen this kind of carnage and they can’t fix it. Labs bite more because they are owned in much greater numbers. Dah. Labs are not filling coffins, Pitbulls are. Too bad you discount the intelligence of voters. Bites are minor occurrences that are usually minor. Pitbulls don’t bite, They attack and keep on a victim with a sustained goal of bringing about death. They often shred the victims into little bitty pieces and then wag their tails happily after returning home. The parents of a child killed in Illinois by the family pitbull that had loved the child before noted that the dog wagged its tail happily after killing the toddler as if nothing was abnormal. These dogs are great until they aren’t. Then they are uncontrollable, strong, evil, killing machines.

      • Linda Hart

        So sorry to hear you hate so much. Labs and lab mixes use to be the most common dogs in shelters but not anymore. But since NO study can identify the percentages of breeds or mixes in our communities, we have no way of proving that one way or the other. I’ve worked with several pit bulls who are service dogs, and very good ones. Very gentle and very in tune to their owner’s needs. Again it goes back to bad owner, bad dog. Stop the cycle with education and dangerous dog laws that protect the community from ANY dog that bites, not just a few based on breed.

  • Vanessa

    The first sentence doesn’t make sense.. She has to drive to Aurora to visit her dog because he’s not allowed in aurora?

    • MrColorado

      It’s the Sentinel. Typos galore.

  • Mike Stein

    There are existing factual errors within the article. There are 550 jurisdictions that currently have pit bull bans or restrictions, including insurance requirements, etc. There are not 700 jurisdictions that ban pit bulls outright. Furthermore, this number is declining rapidly. Furthermore, all of the Aurora statistics on dog bites that have been made public (which are several years old) show an increase in dog bites, and more importantly, severe dog bites, since the ban. Aurora tracks bites by breed as part of the legislation that instituted the ban in the first place. They have the data – its highly suspect that they haven’t released data from the last few years.

    • MrColorado

      Wrong. Call the City of Aurora before you pass out bad info as fact.

      • Mike Stein

        As I said.. the older data has been published. So, perhaps when you say “wrong”, you might want to actually justify it with Aurora’s own evidence. It makes it a bit more meaningful.

        They haven’t published data since the repeal came up. But every data point beforehand showed bites and severe bites increasing. One other thing that Animal Control did was change the definition of a pit bull as well in order to show an impact.

  • Janvier Li

    We just got our ballots and the vote isn’t on them. Can some one please tell me what’s going on? I’m so confused….

    • Linda Hart

      Last item on the ballot.

      • Janvier Li

        Just figured it out. I’m in Centennial. Not close enough to voice my opinion but close enough to be effected by it 😕

  • Jaloney Caldwell

    30 plus people killed so far, most by pitbulls. Pic is of pitbull owners PROTESTING truth as they said it showed their dogs in a negative light. So they want censorship.

  • Frank2525

    I already voted to keep the ban. For the hard heads who won’t accept the statistics offered, do a search for cities across U.S. where Police turned information to D.A. who have charged owners with manslaughter. Especially in cases where these dogs are kept for very purpose, as the Pot grower in California with 4 dogs, who had attacked before, and killed woman on morning walk. Or dog in Denver metro area that waited outside store until door opened, rushed in and killed handicapped woman’s dog on leash, and drug her outside store. Poured hot coffee and water on dog. Would not quit or let go. Manslaughter or Murder charges are entirely appropriate in these cases.

    • Linda Hart

      Glad you brought up the Denver metro incident Frank2525. Actually that dog was not a pitbull, it was an American Bulldog as is clarified in the official report. The newspapers got it wrong. Not a banned breed in Aurora or Denver. So how did would the breed ban protect these people and their dog?? This owner has been sentenced to take mandatory education and training classes and the offending dog will be tracked for at least the next two years. If there are ANY additional offenses (dog at large, aggressive behavior or nuisance behavior) or the dog and owner don’t pass a behavior evaluation test (after approved training classes completed), the owner will be back in court and the dog could be put down. Break the cycle, and you prevent future bites from the dog, and future bad dogs created by the owner.

      • Frank2525

        I retired from military in 1976, moved back to my home in Aurora, bought in 1963 when we had about 3,000 residents. No problems in those days with dog breeds or bad neighbors. However since 1977 I have seen influx and expansion to about 325,000 now with very mixed results. Neighbors do not visit, or know each other. I don’t really care what breed of dog people choose, IF KEPT ON OWN PROPERTY, SAFELY ENCLOSED, TOP AND SIDES. Neighbor was bitten in own back yard by pit bull as police report stated, and was testified to in court. He lost work for short time. That owner kept the dog, and about a month later I was working in my driveway between house-garage, and that dog had come around block, down my drive, and I was about to attack me. I happened to be working on a garden rake repair, and immediately stood and challenged that dog. It left slowly, and I marched right behind it ready to kill it. After discussion with owner, he moved. Just after 3d July this year, neighbor received 3 tickets in less than week of his 2 very aggressive dogs got out and chased people into their houses. My son called police last time, and when they showed up, the dogs were aggressive to them. They called dog warden who came and issued the third ticket, with police report referenced. They moved the next week, so I suspect they are still in area, hopefully with a fence that will keep their dogs contained. I am for aggressive action by police, dog warden, and courts IN ALL DOG CASES. LET THE JUDGE SORT IT OUT, UNDER LAWS OF LIABILITY, INSURANCE, AND IF MAJOR SURGERY OR MUTILATION OR DEATH OCCURS, issue and enforce attempted manslaughter or murder, as appropriate. I would also like to see any dog (indoors or outside dog) weighting more than 40 lbs, require insurance, OF ANY BREED. Children and Seniors who are vulnerable should be able to enjoy their neighborhood safely and not fear taking a walk, or even running for health purposes.
        I have owned dogs all my life, starting on farm in Ohio with small rabbit dogs, and our farm dogs to herd cattle or protect our own farm. Dogs did not wander to other farms, but if they did it was proper etiquette to kill them, bury them, and inform the owner when you saw them of the action. Our dogs knew our farm borders as well as I did. And in my youth every one had guns, hunted, and used the guns as tools. But the Aurora Gun ban has reduced many dogs of questionable breeding and aggressiveness over the years since ban enacted. AND I HAVE VOTED TO CONTINUE THE BAN. Dropped ballot on 15th about noon. Also voted against all initiatives, since they do not belong in Colorado Constitution. If needed, get a legislator to initiate and pass through house and senate, and Governor. .

        • Linda Hart

          I understand your comments Frank2525 and agree with you on many. That owner was irresponsible in so many ways and you did all you could do to resolve the problem with existing Aurora laws. I have no tolerance for any dog that threatens or bites without provocation. But you actually prove my point on the education side of this issue. If the dog was a pit bull it would have been seized, so it probably was another non-banned breed, which in effect did not protect you and therefore in their minds not as dangerous. Aurora’s dangerous dog law has no real teeth because they are overly dependent on their pit bull ban. If the animal control had a good law that made the dog owner responsible for attending approved training classes WITH the dogs, required behavior evaluation at the end of that class and assessment of confinement of the dogs on their own property, as well as the dogs being tracked for any additional nuisance behavior it could trigger another court visit and possible removal of the dogs if they did not meet the requirements. The problem would have probably been resolved a lot sooner than with the breed ban in place now. If the owner allows the dog(s) to continue to be a nuisance and endanger the neighborhood, then they are not responsible enough to own a dog. Your former neighbor sounds like such a person. That is the purpose of getting rid of the breed ban. FOCUS on the BAD dogs and irresponsible owners, rather than taking dogs who have done nothing wrong away from responsible owners! There is a vet in Aurora who I know who has had two different pit bull mixes as service dogs. He has serious PTSD from Vietnam. A sweet man who loves his dogs, and his dog provides him with a way to deal with the PTSD. The first dog was as sweet as you could ask for of any dog. She would never think of biting someone and loved everyone, especially her owner. When she died from cancer he called me and I helped him find just the right pit bull mix to replace her. It takes an especially calm and stable temperament for any dog to be a true service dog, and pit bulls/pit bull mixes seem to have an innate ability to be those dogs when raised properly. I found such this second dog for him at a shelter and she has well filled the very big paw prints of her predecessor. The moral of this story is that Aurora had seized his first service dog from his home only because she looked like a pit bull, and refused to give her back. It took hours of efforts on the part of his attorneys to get her released back to him. And she came home from the shelter sick with kennel cough. She was seized not because she was a bad dog, ran loose or was in any way a nuisance to anyone, but only because of her physical appearance. Is that fair? He went through months of unnecessary trauma because of all of this when he and the dog were not bothering anyone. I find that unacceptable, and is one of the reasons I am so active in supporting repeal of any breed ban in this state. I don’t own a pit bull, I own Silky Terriers now who weigh about 12 pounds. Logic would tell you that having small dogs I would be terrified of pit bulls attacking them if the breed was as vicious as some imply. I’m not. I did own and train Dobermans in the mid-70’s when they were the supposed “vicious” dogs of the day, so I fully understand what owners of currently banned breeds are going through. I have lots of years of experience working with dogs, my own as well as client’s, so am very familiar with what goes into a dog being bad, and how to resolve the dog’s issues as well as the owners. Aurora and Denver need effective dangerous dog laws and education programs, not breed bans to fix their issues. Your vote is already cast, but I’m hoping others will think before they vote for a ban that not only does not work, but gives a false sense of security to those who support them. Any dog can bite yet you are only protecting yourself from 2-3 breed out of around 400 breeds plus mixes. Not a good fix.

          • Frank2525

            Thanks for a reasonable and reasoned response. I know my attitude has had an effect. After I retired, I was working at Samsonite as Electrician. Wife and I was chased by a dog on our street that was out all the time (1978), as we rode our bicycles for exercise and health. Dogs were not controlled then, though we had a male warden. When that dog veered off and went after kid very aggressively, I sent email to all town council members, and Mayor Paul Tauer “That Aurora dog law was a “dam” joke. No one observed it. I received phone calls from majority of council, and we discussed it. Samsonite had policy of NOT taking phone calls for employees, unless it was an emergency, though I wore a pager on belt. Warden called and told Samsonite it was emergency, and I called number. He wanted me to come to office and sign complaint. I chewed him out for lying, and told him when I would be home. When I arrived, he was waiting and I signed complaint. He went up the street to that house and presented complaint, not showing my name on copy they got, but the dog ran out the door and aggressively charged him, so they got two complaints. A Female warden was either hired, or promoted, because dog enforcement picked up immediately in Aurora. And city expanded, more people moved in, and learned quick to keep dogs on own property or on leash. And it has stayed relatively controlled until recently we see and hear more dogs. In a city, I don’t mind the barking of smaller dogs, but the larger ones set off dogs for blocks around. And with hospitals, clinics, more people with more problems, they don’t need the aggravation. Every dog I ever owned was sweet and lovable, in or out of house. But kept on my own property and since city has grown, smaller ones. If people want large ones with loud barking, they should look for rural property, not close together, especially with loss of being neighbors who are transit. That particular neighbor with dogs who moved in July, was ignorant and did not care. Warned week before 4th, when he set off 3 large fireworks that left ground to about 200 feet and exploded, of Colorado ban on fireworks leaving ground due to drought conditions, and Aurora even banning the ones held in hand . Complete ban, on 3rd of July at 9:40PM he set off 3 or 4 that scared whole neighborhood. I thought a neighboring house had blown up (gas explosion?). He was drunk and argumentative, and CAUSED MY HEART TO GO BACK INTO FIBRILLATIONS AGAIN, FOR THE 4TH TIME SINCE 2008. I had told him of this, when we first met and he played loud music on autos, with the booming bass as he arrived home. And he seemed to understand. We have hospital just up the street, he served in military, and I cautioned him of returning veterans with PTSD not needing that. My cardiologist has my heart back to normal for age 85, but I do not want a pacemaker, if I can avoid it. But it took very careful monitoring, more visits to doctor to manage increased prescriptions, to achieve that. I don’t need it. Since he moved, we don’t have near the dog telegraph system of his dogs setting off all the others for blocks around. When they bark now, it is short, for whatever alerted them, but EVER SO MUCH QUIETER. I still exchange emails with Ex-Mayor Paul and Kate Tauer, and joke that now “our street is so much quieter, it is hard to sleep”. I don’t believe I am the only older person in Aurora who does not welcome the dogs telegraphing each other at night, or at any time. Especially the lonesome ones chained or in backyards while owners are working. And especially so in winter when it gets really cold for them. I see too many dogs who are not really pets, but are kept for ego reasons. Abused in heat of summer, and cold of winter. I was born as a farm kid, but Korean war changed my career and life plans. Also I don’t believe younger couples without dogs or children, should have to tolerate large, especially aggressive dogs, of any size. So I have to ask, why put up with aggravation of classes, education, visits from police and dog wardens, when there are better choices without that?

  • Joe Hardhat

    If Aurora permits pit bulls then I’m getting one to protect me from stray pits I may encounter on my walks.

    • Linda Hart

      Joe, if you see ANY dog running loose you should call animal control. There is no excuse for loose dogs in a community.

  • John

    16 deaths this year alone from pit bulls. Mostly small children or the elderly. I’ll vote to ban pit bulls. You pit bull owners are as rabid as your dogs. If you don’t like the ban, go live elsewhere, I’ll be glad to be rid of you from this city.

    • Kat Caletka

      Thousands of deaths a year from humans. Should we put a ban on human beings, too?

  • Silver Fox

    I voted to keep the Pit Bull ban – NO on 2D. End of story. Sorry, I just don’t trust the breed or the people that keep them.

  • KaD

    Pit Bull Rescue Central — one of the leading pit bull educational websites on the Internet — is startlingly clear when it talks about the realities of pit bull ownership.

    Pit Bull Dog Aggression:

    It is a fact that our APBTs, ASTs and pit mixes come with a built-in fighting heritage. It doesn’t matter where we get them from, whether it be the pound, a stray we pick up, or a puppy we buy from a breeder. The majority of pit bulls will, at some point in their lives, exhibit some degree of dog-on-dog aggression … We cannot predict when or where it will happen and we can’t love, train or socialize it out of the dog. Pit bulls may not start a fight, but they will finish it.

    Pit Bull Fight Prevention:

    Do not bring an adult Pit Bull to an off-leash dog park or any other area where it may come into contact with other dogs running loose.

    Early socialization MAY help, but is not a guarantee that your Pit Bull won’t become dog-aggressive at some point. ALWAYS be prepared for it!

    Take note that a fight can strike suddenly and for no apparent reason. Warning signs can be very subtle with Pit Bulls and even completely absent in certain cases.

    Remember that these dogs were “bred” to fight Submission signals that would indicate the end of the hostilities can be ignored in the heat of a fight by Pit Bull type dogs.

    Breaking Up a Fight

    Pit bulls are terriers and were bred to recognize other dogs as “prey.” Simply put, in a fight, the other dog becomes a “rabbit.” Terriers grab a hold of their prey and shake.

    Remember that a fight may not always be preceded by growling, barking or posturing. One second everything is fine and the next the dogs are going at it. Excitement and external stimulus, such as a squirrel or cat running up a tree, can trigger a fight.

    A wagging tail doesn’t mean a dog won’t fight. In fact, a wagging tail is often a signal of excitement and the faster the tail goes the more excited the dog is. As explained above, intense excitement can trigger a fight.

  • Concerned Citizen

    Please keep pitbulls ban Please protect our children. People/ Children’s lives are never ever the same after they have been bitten, they are robbed of a trust that never returns and replaced with a fear that never leaves as well as horrific injuries and the majority of the time its bulls v Children. Please keep us safe at least in Aurora Thank you

  • lindy larson

    I am so tired of pit bull owners having to learn the hard way always at other peoples expense! I’m sick and tired of hearing how a couple of pit bulls dragged their grandchild out of a window and killed them or how a couple of pit bulls broke out of their yard and attacked someone walking down the street! Let’s not forget how many pets and or animals have been attacked or killed by someones family pit bull. All of you pit bull owners are in denial about how dangerous the pit bull breed is. All I can say is “Sorry your going to have to learn the hard way.”If we can file charges against parents when their child brings a gun or pot to school I think its time we charge pit bull owners when their dogs attack others!!!! Keep the Ban……….because sooner or later some breeds will be banned all across America and the sooner the better as far as I am concerned!!! And yes….I am one of those people!

    • Cristina

      I am tired of people like you!

    • Cristina

      Why is BSL bad?

      BSL fails to target the problem: bad dog owners. Those who are causing the problems with their dogs will not care about the law. Either these owners will continue to own the breeds mentioned in the BSL or dump the dogs, get a new breed and continue the cycle. Or, a restriction will make the breeds more attractive to those who get a feeling of power by intentionally breaking the law. Some owners are simply poorly educated and do not know what it takes to properly raise, train, socialize and manage any dog. Owners who are intentionally bad or owners who are undereducated and irresponsible are the problems that need to be addressed. Also, BSL are tough to enforce, expensive and often very vague with their descriptions and how to identify a dangerous dog.

    • Cristina

      Any dog can be a risk. Even small breeds have seriously injured and killed children. An American Pit Bull Terrier in a good home is a safer dog than a Dachshund in a poor home. Humans decide how safe the individual dog will be. In the majority of dog problems, there is the owner to blame. The dog ends up as much of a victim in many respects. Is the dog to blame? No, he is just reflecting the owner. You can tell a lot about a person through his dogs.

    • Cristina

      These breeds are targeted because of a lack of education. Legislators and the general public do not take the time to learn the truth behind many breeds mentioned in BSL. Instead, they believe hype and information from undereducated and unreliable sources. The people creating the most problem with dogs are: those using dogs as status symbols for the wrong reasons; undereducated owners who do not realize the time it takes to properly raise any dog; those who unintentionally allow undesired behaviors to grow and fail to address them. How many people let tiny pups play tug of war with their hands or feet? Are they aware that this actually teaches the pup it is good to bite humans when playing? Children often unintentionally or intentionally do things that can lead to a bite: teasing, inappropriate play, trying to pat strange dogs, scaring dogs, etc. It looks better for lawmakers to ban a breed than to target the true source of the problem with supposedly killer breeds: often young, unsupervised, poorly raised kids or the irresponsible adult looking for another status symbol to prove machismo. There is little personal accountability any more. If something is being used for the bad, take it away from all as opposed to targeting the source of the bad – the human. Let’s make an analogy: as this is being written there is a lawsuit against fast food restaurants: they are being blamed for obesity. A person can find salads, juice and milk at these fast food places or choose a smaller burger, fries and drink. Yes, the employees try to sell super-sized stuff, but you do not have to buy it. A person can eat unhealthily at any restaurant from Beverly Hills to Boston. Yet only fast food places are being targeted. Where is personal accountability? What lawmaker will jump on the bandwagon and try to restrict fast food places and what they can serve? Can you make the analogy? Any dog can be a problem. It is the human that decides what the dog becomes – regardless of the breed. Personal accountability. Who is in control of the dog?

    • Cristina

      That is what people opposed to BSL are trying to do: get legislators to address the root of the problem without punishing the good. But legislators are often poorly educated and/or use the wrong sources for their information. They go by what is printed in the media and not reality. It looks better in the eyes of the undereducated to blame the dog than the human.

    • Cristina

      The supportors of BSL claim their goal is to put an end to dog attacks by targeting certain breeds of dog that are “inherently vicious/dangerous”, and dogs that tend to appeal to people who are involved in criminal activity (i.e. drug dealers, dog fighters, gangbangers, etc).

      Did You Know?? No studies have been conducted to prove which breed has the strongest bite pressure? The very few tests that have been done comparing the bite pressure of several breeds showed PSI to be considerably lower than some wild estimates that have been made. Recently Dr. Brady Barr of National Geoprahic conducted a comparative test between a Pit Bull, a Rottweiler, and a German Shepherd. The Pit Bull had the LOWEST PSI OF THE THREE, measuring in with a bite of 320 pounds per square inch of pressure.

      What About Bite Statistics? Do They Prove We Need BSL?:

      Dog Bite Statistics are unreliable sources of information regarding the “viciousness” or dangerousness of breeds for the following reasons:

      1) Very few people can accurately identify dog breeds.

      2) Breeds are not listed individually, but rather under group headings. For instance, under the heading “pit bull”, you will find no less than 3 distinct breeds, mixes of any of those three breeds, any dog that appears to be one of those breeds, plus any misidentified dogs. And make no mistake, dogs get misidentified all the time. There is a case of an Akita attack that was reported as a “pit bull attack” in the media. This author’s dogs have been mistaken for Boxers, Bulldogs, and yes, one was even mistaken for an Akita. Just about any Pit Bull owner can tell you of many cases where their dog has dealt with a case of mistaken identity.

      3) Bite stats take into account only reported bites.

      4) Bite stats do not take into account the dogs of a specified breed who do NOT bite. No one knows the overall percentage of Pit Bulls who bite compared to, let’s say, the percentage of Dalmatians or Golden Retrievers who bite.

      5) Bite stats do not list “provoked” bites that occur at grooming shops and veterinary offices. If you took a survey of groomers and veterinarians, I’m sure you’d find an overwhelming majority of them would tell you that the small, “cutesy” dogs that people generally hold as harmless are the dogs that give them the most trouble. This author is an ex-groomer and can attest to the fact that the big dogs, particularly the Pit Bulls, and other similar breeds, are by far the most cooperative.

      6) Bite stats DO list the truly provoked bites, i.e. dogs who have bitten after being teased/harrassed/abused.

    • Cristina

      While it is quite obvious that there is a problem in some communities regarding loose dogs harrassing/attacking people, criminal activity involving the use of dogs, and dog attacks in general, BSL fails to reduce the occurance of these problems because it fails to address the root cause: people. BSL doesn’t work because it is purely predjudicial in nature. Instead of punishing owners who are irresponsible and criminals who use dogs for illegal purposes, the legislation targets dogs for simply existing, and people’s rights to own the breed of dog they so choose.

      BSL is also largely based on misinformation and truth-twisting, its authors citing the “inherent viciousness” of certain dog breeds as plenty reason to outlaw even those dogs that have never acted in a criminal fashion. Bite statistics are also used as justification since “pit bulls” often top such lists. Of course, no breed is inherently vicious, and the accuracy of bite stats are suspect as best.

      BSL doesn’t work because…

      1) Current laws are barely enforced. New laws are going to be heaped on top of old ones, for what purpose? Take something as simple as the leash law. It is not very often enforced. Leashes save lives, they prevent dog bites and attacks. It is a simple, yet extremely effective means of lessening dog problems. The blatant disregard for leash laws is not something that should be allowed to go on.

      2) BSL takes time, money and man-power to enforce. The responsibility for the enforcement of laws falls on Animal Control and sheltering systems. These are agencies that are already dealing with massive surpluses of animals, more calls than they can sometimes handle. Now they are being forced to deal with the additional weight BSL dumps on their shoulders.

      3) BSL is predjudicial in nature. It punishes dogs and owners who have done nothing wrong. It is discriminatory against people who choose to own a particular breed of dog.

      4) All dogs bite. All dogs can inflict harm. There is no scientific study to prove that one breed of dog bites more or causes more injury than any other breed of dog. There have been cases of tiny dogs, under 20 pounds killing or seriously injurying children.

      5) If Pit Bulls and similar breeds are outlawed or severely restricted, one of two things happen: criminals and irresponsible owners will continue to get their hands on the dogs and simply ignore laws, or they will turn to other breeds to suit their purposes.

  • Chris

    I am russian Roulette with community safety @Jaloney Caldwell

  • Cristina

    Why is BSL bad?

    BSL fails to target the problem: bad dog owners. Those who are causing the problems with their dogs will not care about the law. Either these owners will continue to own the breeds mentioned in the BSL or dump the dogs, get a new breed and continue the cycle. Or, a restriction will make the breeds more attractive to those who get a feeling of power by intentionally breaking the law. Some owners are simply poorly educated and do not know what it takes to properly raise, train, socialize and manage any dog. Owners who are intentionally bad or owners who are undereducated and irresponsible are the problems that need to be addressed. Also, BSL are tough to enforce, expensive and often very vague with their descriptions and how to identify a dangerous dog.

    Aren’t the dogs mentioned in BSL dangerous?

    Any dog can be a risk. Even small breeds have seriously injured and killed children. An American Pit Bull Terrier in a good home is a safer dog than a Dachshund in a poor home. Humans decide how safe the individual dog will be. In the majority of dog problems, there is the owner to blame. The dog ends up as much of a victim in many respects. Is the dog to blame? No, he is just reflecting the owner. You can tell a lot about a person through his dogs.

    If any dog can be dangerous, why are only certain breeds targeted?

    These breeds are targeted because of a lack of education. Legislators and the general public do not take the time to learn the truth behind many breeds mentioned in BSL. Instead, they believe hype and information from undereducated and unreliable sources. The people creating the most problem with dogs are: those using dogs as status symbols for the wrong reasons; undereducated owners who do not realize the time it takes to properly raise any dog; those who unintentionally allow undesired behaviors to grow and fail to address them. How many people let tiny pups play tug of war with their hands or feet? Are they aware that this actually teaches the pup it is good to bite humans when playing? Children often unintentionally or intentionally do things that can lead to a bite: teasing, inappropriate play, trying to pat strange dogs, scaring dogs, etc. It looks better for lawmakers to ban a breed than to target the true source of the problem with supposedly killer breeds: often young, unsupervised, poorly raised kids or the irresponsible adult looking for another status symbol to prove machismo. There is little personal accountability any more. If something is being used for the bad, take it away from all as opposed to targeting the source of the bad – the human. Let’s make an analogy: as this is being written there is a lawsuit against fast food restaurants: they are being blamed for obesity. A person can find salads, juice and milk at these fast food places or choose a smaller burger, fries and drink. Yes, the employees try to sell super-sized stuff, but you do not have to buy it. A person can eat unhealthily at any restaurant from Beverly Hills to Boston. Yet only fast food places are being targeted. Where is personal accountability? What lawmaker will jump on the bandwagon and try to restrict fast food places and what they can serve? Can you make the analogy? Any dog can be a problem. It is the human that decides what the dog becomes – regardless of the breed. Personal accountability. Who is in control of the dog?