James Schumaker
-
The Basics
-
James on Patch
-
More Stuff
Comments
-
On the article Owner of Mauled Retriever Seeks Pit Bull Restrictions in San Clemente
-
On the article Owner of Mauled Retriever Seeks Pit Bull Restrictions in San Clemente
James Schumaker
2:45 pm on Wednesday, April 24, 2013
Aimee, I have taken a look at the sites you mentioned. They are all advocacy groups for Pit Bulls. While I certainly applaud their efforts, particularly those of the Animal Farm Foundation, to retrain and find new homes for Pit Bulls, it would be hard to agree with your statement that these groups are less biased than dogsbite.org. They come at the subject from a different point of view, and are more concerned about spreading "feel good" stories about Pit Bulls and fighting efforts to regulate them. I haven't seen anything specific on any of the sites that deals with the fact that Pit Bulls are responsible for the majority of fatal attacks on humans, other than sympathetic anecdotes about this Pit Bull or another.
-
On the article Owner of Mauled Retriever Seeks Pit Bull Restrictions in San Clemente
James Schumaker
2:44 pm on Wednesday, April 24, 2013
Aimee, I have taken a look at the sites you mentioned. They are all advocacy groups for Pit Bulls. While I certainly applaud their efforts, particularly those of the Animal Farm Foundation, to retrain and find new homes for Pit Bulls, it would be hard to agree with your statement that these groups are less biased than dogsbite.com. They come at the subject from a different point of view, and are more concerned about spreading "feel good" stories about Pit Bulls and fighting efforts to regulate them. I haven't seen anything specific on any of the sites that deals with the fact that Pit Bulls are responsible for the majority of fatal attacks on humans, other than sympathetic anecdotes about this Pit Bull or another.
-
On the article Owner of Mauled Retriever Seeks Pit Bull Restrictions in San Clemente
James Schumaker
2:28 pm on Wednesday, April 24, 2013
Aimee: Take a look at the dogsbite site. The site is not reporting on bites, but fatalities as a result of dog attacks.
-
On the article Owner of Mauled Retriever Seeks Pit Bull Restrictions in San Clemente
James Schumaker
11:46 am on Wednesday, April 24, 2013
ReplyI've noticed a lot of folks here who are pit bull owners and who seem to think that just because their pit bull is well-trained and has never hurt anyone, this means there is no problem with Pit Bulls as a breed. Of course, there are responsible Pit Bull owners, and there are irresponsible ones too. The problem arises because, as a breed, Pit Bulls are much more lethal than any other. They constitute five percent of dogs in the United States, but are responsible for 61 percent of fatal attacks by dogs on humans, despite the fact that they are already regulated by the U.S. military and over 600 U.S. cities, including 24 in California ( http://www.scribd.com/doc/56495216/Estimated-U-S-Cities-Counties-States-and-Military-Facilities-with-Breed-Specific-Pit-Bull-Laws ).
Anecdotal evidence is fine, but it is only that. The argument that "My dog is OK so all similar dogs are OK" is not supported by the facts. Here is a link on 2012 dogbite statistics. It pretty much says it all: http://www.dogsbite.org/dog-bite-statistics-fatalities-2012.php . Last year, there were four fatal Pit Bull attacks on humans in California, the most for any state in the U.S. If you scroll down the site, you will see the details of each attack. They include fatal attacks on a 59-year-old woman in Escondido, an 8-month-old baby in Lemon Grove, a 30-year-old woman in Fallbrook, and a 34-year-old man in Fresno.
-
On the article Owner of Mauled Retriever Seeks Pit Bull Restrictions in San Clemente
James Schumaker
11:48 am on Saturday, April 20, 2013
ReplyIn 1991, the British banned American Pit Bull Terriers from the UK under the "Dangerous Dogs Act," absent a special court exemption ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dangerous_Dogs_Act_1991 ). We might not want to go that far, but It seems to me that there is a clear need to place Pit Bulls under heavy restrictions in San Clemente. In particular, they should be required to be restrained (leashed and muzzled) at all times when off the owner's property, fenced in and on leash runs when in the owner's yard, and banned from areas where there are children and other dogs.
-
On the article UPDATE: Pit Bulls Maul Dog, Injure 3 People
James Schumaker
2:54 pm on Saturday, April 13, 2013
ReplyThe British know a thing or two about dogs, and since 1991 they have banned American Pit Bull Terriers from the UK under the "Dangerous Dogs Act," unless there is a special court exemption ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dangerous_Dogs_Act_1991 ). Maybe San Clemente should consider doing the same thing. We have enough security problems on the Beach Trail without having to worry about vicious dogs as well.
-
On the article GOP Rift in Missouri: Is It Healthy?
James Schumaker
1:03 pm on Sunday, March 17, 2013
ReplyDemocrats must be rubbing their hands with glee at the prospect of a civil war between the Libertarian wing and the traditional wing of the Republican Party. And we haven't even mentioned the Tea Party yet. In an overwhelmingly Red State, Republicans are somehow finding a way to lose.
-
On the article A Felony to File Gun Laws? Is Missouri a Laughingstock?
James Schumaker
10:19 am on Monday, February 25, 2013
In answer to Michael Davis: We are talking about the law here, not theology. The Federalist Papers are just that, papers. They are not the Holy Bible. You can disagree with the Supreme Court, but I don't think you will have any luck asserting that your interpretation of the Constitution should prevail over that of the Court. That's what they are there for. If you don't like their decision, get the decision reviewed before the court again. Until then, it's the law of the land.
-
On the article A Felony to File Gun Laws? Is Missouri a Laughingstock?
James Schumaker
12:44 pm on Sunday, February 24, 2013
ReplyActually, the U.S. Supreme Court recently ruled on the Second Amendment in District of Columbia vs. Heller. The majority opinion, written by conservative Justice Scalia, noted in part that: "Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.." This would make bills like that sponsored by State Rep. Mike Leara unconstitutional. Of course, we all know that Leara is simply pandering to his base of with a bill like this, and it is not serious legislation. The real question is why he is wasting everyone's time when Missouri has many real problems legislators should be addressing. Here is the complete text of the Supreme Court decision: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf
James Schumaker
2:55 pm on Wednesday, April 24, 2013
I'm from San Clemente, and my wife and I walk on the Beach Trail. Maybe that's why I'm a little concerned about Pit Bulls running loose.