If you’ve been in the news biz as I was, there are some stories that sadly repeat themselves over and over. And one of them is the latest case of a kid killed by pit bull pets that everyone said were such loving pooches.
And the one that often comes out after the death story is THIS story:
SAN FRANCISCO Jun 5, 2005 — San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom indicated Sunday that he may propose limitations on pit bull ownership in the wake of last week’s fatal mauling of a 12-year-old boy.
Newsom said he will meet Monday with animal control officials to discuss what steps to take to prevent future attacks. His comments came two days after sixth-grader Nicholas Faibish was viciously attacked in his home by one or both of his family’s pit bulls.
“We have to be realistic,” Newsom said. “You’ve got dogs that literally can kill. We’ve seen it demonstrated. If we can’t change people’s behavior and make them think what’s in their best interest, then that’s when government comes along and becomes a bit paternalistic.”
He said “having a pit bull … and three kids is not acceptable because we’re not going to deal with the consequences of losing a life.” Nicholas Faibish was one of three children.
Newsom said he has no specific proposal as of yet, but that a decision on legislative action would likely be made within a week.
This is what a political science professor once called “crisis-coping.” Similar vows about pit bulls have been heard before.
And there is also a sad sense of deja vu about this:
The distraught mother of the 12-year-old boy killed in his home in a pit bull attack insisted Saturday that the two family pets were not vicious.
Maureen Faibish found her son, Nicholas, lying on the floor of a bedroom of their Sunset District home Friday afternoon covered in blood. He was pronounced dead at the scene.
“My son was the most loving little boy in the world,” she said outside their home, where neighbors had placed flowers to honor the sixth grader.
The boy was home alone at the time of the attack. Asked if she was ever worried about the dogs, Faibish responded: “Never. They’re not vicious.”
BUT:
Police said Saturday that both dogs confronted the first police officer on the scene.
“When he arrived at the flat he radioed in and said he was faced with two vicious dogs,” said police spokesman Sgt. Neville Gittens. “He shot one of the dogs and the other ran away.”
Rex, found hiding in a crawl space outside, was captured. He didn’t exhibit any aggressive behavior at that time, according to Gittens.
Pit Bulls are highly controversial. Some people think they should be tightly controlled, even banned. The breed’s admirers (especially those who breed them) defend the animals. But common sense would screech out this: if you have a kid, don’t buy a pit bull.
Will San Francisco ban pit bulls? Perhaps. Or it’ll pull back at the last minute. If the city does ban the dogs, that’ll probably mean that some people will still keep them secretly. Those who are battling efforts to ban pit bulls object to “breed specific” bans and don’t believe the government has a right to dictate specific dog ownership.
The pit bull’s defenders will in variably insist (probably on this site as well) that there’s nothing wrong with pit bulls — which seem to keep popping up in these dog-attacks-person stories more than Labrador Retrievers, Collies or Beagles. But, then, those dogs aren’t tough enough..
UPDATE: The San Francisco Chronicle offers this background:
Dangerous dog laws vary across the country. Denver and a few other cities ban pit bulls, but some states, including California, prohibit regulating dogs by breed.
In Contra Costa County, some officials have responded to the mauling by two pit bulls of an 11-year-old Concord boy in March by proposing that judges limit canine ownership as one of the conditions of probation for some convicted criminals, who may use vicious dogs as weapons. District Attorney Robert Kochly said he would advocate targeting pit bulls and some other breeds.
Kenneth Phillips, a Los Angeles attorney who represents dog bite victims and operates the Web site dogbitelaw.com, advocated a “middle ground” for potentially dangerous breeds that would “restrict the kinds of people, places and situations where these dogs are allowed.”
He said options include requiring dog safety education in schools and forcing people who sell dogs to give buyers certain information. He said some dogs should require insurance, should be muzzled in public or around children, and should be banned from places like child care centers and crowded apartments.
ADDITIONAL READING ON THE PIT BULL CONTROVERSY:
–The Law and Pit Bulls, a concise national overview by the San Jose Mercury
—Petition to save pit bulls (stemming from a Louisiana city’s ordinance)
—Petition to ban pit bulls in Canada.
—The Real Pit Bull (defending the dog’s image)
–Efforts to ban pit bulls in Canada
–Pit bulls are banned in MANY cities in Kansas
–The case against “breed specific legislation”
–Pit bulls banned in Denver. But the city has considered repealing the ban.
—Ban lifted in Cincinnati after drafting of new city dog control law.
—Efforts in Georgia to ban pit bulls spark controversy.
—FAQ on pit bulls by people sympathetic to pit bulls.
—OVERVIEW on efforts to ban pit bulls.
Joe Gandelman is a former fulltime journalist who freelanced in India, Spain, Bangladesh and Cypress writing for publications such as the Christian Science Monitor and Newsweek. He also did radio reports from Madrid for NPR’s All Things Considered. He has worked on two U.S. newspapers and quit the news biz in 1990 to go into entertainment. He also has written for The Week and several online publications, did a column for Cagle Cartoons Syndicate and has appeared on CNN.