OK, Aurora. Who wants to live next to a pit bull?

I thought so. Me neither.

Not convinced that Aurora is very, very pleased with its ban on keeping pit bulls out of the city, Aurora council members are poised to ask voters whether they want to repeal the longstanding ban.

READ RACHEL SAPIN’S STORY ABOUT THE PIT BULL BAN ELECTION HERE

6495_600

At first glance, you’ve got to ask yourself just how crazy and stupid such an idea is. I mean, really, will you vote “yes” to bring a flood of these dogs back? Do you really believe in your heart of hearts that these dogs aren’t any more of a problem than any other dog? That it’s just a matter of nasty people wanting nasty-looking dogs and treating them in a nasty way so that they eat other dogs and parts of small children?

I don’t buy it.

Now before you bring “Precious” in here to convince me how totally wrong I am, I get it that some of these dogs are as well behaved as any other breed. That has nothing to do with the facts that these dogs have been involved in some of the most deadly, vicious dog attacks ever to occur in Aurora. All of the arguments against a pit-bull ban have nothing to do with the fact that this breed of dog is unnecessary in a world that has more kinds of dogs than trees.

We don’t want them here. We don’t want deadly snakes. We don’t want wild boars. Or ostriches. Or anteaters. They’re all great animals. They’re not great pets. And pets get loose. It’s not about anyone’s constitutional rights or the American way. It’s about living in a big city very, very close to each other and having to respect each other’s space. If it’s all about you and wanting your very own pit bull or nuclear reactor or brown recluse spider ranch, live somewhere far away from anyone who doesn’t think that’s a keen idea.

I get that this is an easy way to shut up a planet-full of doggy do-rights that believe “Precious” should be snoozing with your 2-month-old baby. Once Aurora residents vote in November to uphold the city’s ban on pit bulls, city officials can send boilerplate email messages to the masses saying, “Don’t blame me, blame 40,000 or so voters.”

That’s bad public policy. I’m as frustrated by the outside interests blathering about this local issue as anyone. But it’s perfectly fine to defend the ban with the facts: We just don’t want that animal living among us because we’re convinced it’s just too dangerous and too much trouble.

Instead, we have invited the entire universe of pit bullies to descend upon us to sway the vote.

Ack.

Don’t do it. Ratify the ban and refer callers to the area communities that would love to have them and their dogs as neighbors.

— Dave Perry, Aurora Sentinel editor

26 replies on “PerryBlog: Aurora has already decided to ban pit bulls, no need to let pit bullies have an election”

  1. What a typical, and yet disappointing editorial from you Dave. The fact is that people of Aurora are speaking up. Some of them being veterans who have lost their dogs, yet fought so that you had the right to take up such an ill-informed position and use your “bully pulpit” to pass it off as reality. For that we’re certainly sorry. We’re also sorry for Aurorans, including our own Board member and supporters, whose great city has such a lackluster and hysteria loving editor.

    The facts are quite different from what you post, and have posted in the past. But it sells papers and stirs up fights.

    So what about the American Bulldogs, the 50% pit bulls and the other 7 breed whose bans were removed in 2011? Those dogs were also banned originally under the same justification, and fear based inaccurate information you pass off as solid reporting. They are no longer banned. What has happened? Nothing.

    The reality is that the community of Aurora deserves better than you and the rhetoric that at this point has become nothing more than your battle cry. They are entitled to hear facts. To have laws that look to owners and hold them responsible. They deserve to be looked at equally if they are bitten by a dog. Be it a pit bull or poodle, they deserve recourse with no bias given towards the breed of dog who inured them. They deserve balanced reporting also. We’re so sorry you seem incapable of that.

    We are local. But we’re going to guess that as out of state interests start spamming this site with their usual hysteria and pseudo-facts, you’ll have no issue supporting THOSE that you claim to be so frustrated by.

    Do better Dave. People deserve better than what you’re selling. It’s shameful and you’re embarrassing yourself at this point. Let’s try some journalistic integrity, fact checking and true reporting next time.

    1. I’m trying to recall how many Greyhounds or Golden Retreivers have killed human beings.

  2. What a well researched, fact driven article. Oh wait, just a pointless click-bait diatribe complaining that voters shouldn’t have the right to overturn unscientific, intrusive laws that restrict our rights.

    1. AuroraResident – What a well researched, fact driven reply… a/k/a a slam. People: Read the news reports, linked authors, and documented statistical data provided at Dogsbite.org and Animals 24/7 [Merritt Clifton]. They don’t need to lie and embellish. The serial killer of the dog world eats body parts (remains cannot be found), otherwise, rips scalps off without warning, rips faces off, chunks of flesh are hopefully left lying around, horses are regularly brutalized [wolves don’t even do that]

      1. You’re a little late, but let me bring you up to speed. Merritt Clifton founded animals 24-7 after being forced from his previous position because of a libel lawsuit. Neither he nor dogsbite have statistical data. They have fabricated data, and data hand picked from Media reports that support their position. Recognised organizations, like the Colorado Department of Health and Environment referenced below, show Denver, with a ban, hospitalized a greater percentage of its residences than the rest of the state.

        1. You can’t inform me about anything. When I compare your work here (including your references) with Dogsbite.org and Merritt Clifton, you’re a typical pit parrot who shows no interest in the victims of these brutal maulings or their families. Your statements are meaningless, e.g. “Denver . . . hospitalized a greater percentage of its residences than the rest of state.” For pit bull maulings? Hospitalized for what? You just ramble about so called hospital averages that have nothing to do with pit bulls or restricted breeds. If I am misunderstanding something about your writing, the fault is in your communication. You’re either incompetent to communicate or you are a crass liar just blowing out meaningless numbers. All this is enough to warrant ignoring you as a critic of Dogsbite.org or Merritt Clifton (quoted all the time by reputable writers… while you and yours aren’t quoted for anything). You just like to blather, and blather, and exhaust people who are looking for substance on the issue. You don’t provide it, you just pretend.

          1. You are adorable. My “statements” (gathered by government agencies) are nothing to your “facts” (gathered by classified ads and Google)

            I’ll take reality, thanks.

  3. Well said! I think the majority of residents EVERYWHERE feel the same way. I hear it time and time again from people in my community. We are sick of being run out of our dog parks, out of off-leash play areas, and for some, even off of their own neighborhood sidewalks. Unfortunately, the owners of these savages are loud, outspoken, and vicious and bully legislators into submission and give the impression they speak for the average citizen.

  4. You believe what you want in your “heart of hearts.” The Colorado Department of Health and Environment, who to my knowledge uses research to back up thier findings, says Denver County (bans pit bulls) has a hospitalization average of 3.8 persons per 100,000 residents from 95-2012. The state average is 2.5. Perhaps you would like to provide some insight as to how their ban has made the community more safe. My “heart of hearts” tells me 3.8 is more than 2.5.

    1. Don’t you know that dog racists are unable to understand mathematical equations when they don’t add up the way they want…..

      1. Dogs are not a race. Dogs were made by God for the use and enjoyment and “training” of people. Even if many jurists won’t recognize God, they still recognize what He wrote about having dominion over animals in that the law recognizes animals as property. You have devolved so far down that you compare dogs to humans. Why aren’t dogs handling the leash on a human’s neck. ARE YOU SO DUMB?

      1. They make perfect sense to me since I’ve seen the report they come from. But then again, I’m a resident of Colorado so have easy access to the info.

        1. Okay, RealityFun, you do what I asked BrianChrist to do and tell me what his #s are attached to. Translate his comment for me since you claim it makes perfect sense to you since you have the report. Tell me what the report is saying relevant to the voter’s keeping their restrictions on pit bulls. Tell me, bet you can’t, bet you won’t, bet your just a mindless backslapping pit pusher.

  5. I’ll never ever spend a dime in a municipality that has bsl….I’ll spend my money in towns that aren’t racist.

    2. You probably don’t have a dime. Pit owners are usually judgment proof. Smart people don’t risk their money on owning the serial killer of the dog world. Smart people make money; dumb people don’t, so they get pit bulls to look significant.

  6. Please make sure that only residents can vote,pit nutters love to bus other pit lovers to stack votes.Look out for freaks with fake pit bull service dogs demanding to keep their gripping baby killer that magicality became a service dog just months ago.

    1. Too funny! “pit nutters love to bus other pit lovers to stack votes” This comment goes to show how crazy some of these people are. Conspiracy theorists must have gotten tired of chasing UFO’s so they’ve moved on to other imaginary issues, he he. You can’t make this stuff up.

  7. If you’re convinced that “we don’t want them here,” what is the harm in putting it to a vote? If your position is as obvious as you seem to think, you have nothing to fear! It sounds like you’re terrified of a little democracy. #judgethedognotthebreed

  8. Dogs of all breeds should be restrained on own property, and if out in public, be on leash. Aggressive ones should be wearing a muzzle. No excuse is acceptable if one is loose, off property and attacks other animals, or humans. City is not the place for large dogs that need large areas to run. I grew up in farm country, and custom if a strange dog came to your property, kill it, bury it, and try to find out who owner is and tell them, so they won’t be looking for that dog. If my dog strayed to other property, I would expect the same. And we knew most dogs on neighboring farms. Stray or lost dogs in country kill chickens, ducks, cats, and anything else they can handle. So are not tolerated. We used to have stray dog problem in Aurora, which has been better managed. Though we have gained new residents from other states, who do not know or abide by city laws, even when warned of the law. Somehow I have never owned an aggressive dog. So when someone dog bites a person, I look at the owner too.

  9. I’m old, white, and male. Ergo I want everything to stop changing. It’s unsettling to me. What’s next? reconsidering my politics? questioning my religion? Once I’ve made a decision, reality conforms to my will and all further considerations are moot. I want to sit on it for another 60 years, regardless of the facts. And your silly little “democratic process” based on this “science” and “research” makes me angry and frightened, especially since I already know which way the wind is blowing and the writing is on the wall for this legislative detritus known as breed banning. Get off my lawn!

  11. This is an outstanding editorial. Why don’t you muster the fortitude to reprint it at this crucial time.

Comments are closed.