Letters to the Editor 7-10-14

Agree with the leash
Editor: In Cynthia Boaz’s letter, she was spot on about unleashed dogs in the Healdsburg Ridge. We walk our pups there too and have often been confronted with off-leash dogs, some friendly, some not. Our pups are leashed because we’re responsible dog owners and it’s the law. We too, have found that some people with off-leash dogs, when told to leash up, get offended and verbally attack us for walking what they consider “vicious dogs” because they’re pit bulls.  Sadly, the pit bull has acquired a reputation as an unpredictable and dangerous menace, which Ms. Boaz has further perpetuated in her letter as she went on to describe how dangerous she believes they are. But she also said that the dog didn’t bite anyone and was taken under control by a 9-year old girl. The issue is unleashed dogs, not the breed. The journal, “Applied Animal Behavior Science,” recently named the top three most unpredictable and aggressive breeds. First are Dachshunds, because 20 percent have bitten or attempted to bite a stranger, and 8 percent lash out at their owners. Chihuahuas are second, and Jack Russells are third.
Yes, if a pit bull does bite, she’s far more likely to inflict serious injuries than most other breeds, simply because of her size and strength. Many dogs of other breeds bite people, but these incidents almost always go unreported, because they’re not exciting enough fodder for television and print. According to our trainer, if an off-leash dog were to attack one of our leashed dogs, and was injured, the headline would likely read, “Dog Mauled By Pit Bull”, rather than, “Unleashed Dog Injured – Owner Cited for Leash Violation”. Despite the pit bull’s bad rap, thanks in part to sociopaths like Michael Vick, a well-socialized and trained pittie is one of the most beautiful, loyal and affectionate breeds. During WWl, Stubby, a U.S. Army pit bull, earned several medals and was even honored at the White House for his life saving heroics during combat, (read Wikipedia). Many famous figures, including Helen Keller, Presidents Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson, shared their lives and homes with pit bulls.
In fact, other breeds, such as German Shepherds and Rottweilers, have more powerful jaw strength than pit bulls. So, the issue is not breed. It’s irresponsibility on the part of dog owners, who refuse to obey the law and keep their dogs on a leash.
Susan Jones and Toni Lisoni
Healdsburg
Pit Bull bashing
Editor: This is in response to “Leash your dogs” 7/3/14. As Ms Boaz’s letter started out with a valid concern of the current leash law not being upheld, the letter lost its’ validity with me when it became an apparent Pit Bull bashing free for all. The majority, if not all of her comments were false, misquoted and just plain ignorant. Ms. Boaz you need to stop believing the hype and educate yourself on the truth. Glen Bui who is with the American Canine Foundation has written an article based on study and research of genetics and behavior of the Pit Bull. It is that information I am relaying to you, along with the facts found on the ASPCA website aspca.org. I would first like to correct the use of the word Pit Bull. You may or may not be aware of the fact that “Pit Bull” is not a breed, but a “type” that includes several registered breeds and crossbreeds. Therefore, the statistics that claim “Pit Bulls” are responsible for some percentage of attacks are lumping many separate breeds of dogs together and then comparing those statistics to other dogs that are counted as individual breeds. There are currently 25 breeds that are commonly considered a “Pit Bull.” So in comparing statistics of the “Pit Bull” which includes 25 additional breeds to that of one individual breed, well you can see where the totals are misconceived. You said you have a generally well-behaved dog but sometimes dog-aggressive especially with particular breeds. Either your dog is dog aggressive with all dogs or not at all. You said Pit Bulls are responsible for 25 of 26 dog bite fatalities in the US and cannot be trusted with any animals or small children no matter how well they’ve been raised. From 1965-2001 (when these numbers were collected) there were at least 36 different breeds/types of dog that had been involved in a fatal attack in the US. When dog bite statistics are taken into considerations versus the population, “Pit Bulls” come in at the bottom of the list with approximately 5,000,000 in the registered population, the number of reported attacks was 60. Using percentage vs. population this equaled to .0012 percentage. Six other breeds were above the Pit Bull. Over 30 breeds of dogs are responsible for over 500 fatal attacks in the last 30 years. Studies by the Center of Disease Control have “proven” that no one breed of dog is inherently vicious and the CDC supports the position that irresponsible owners, not the breed is the number one cause of dog bites. In a recent testing done by the American Canine Temperament Testing Society Pit Bulls achieved a passing rate of 83.9 percent passing 4th from the highest of 122 breeds, better than the Beagle passing at 78.2 percent and the Golden Retriever passing at 83.2 percent. The average passing rate for ALL breeds/types was 77 percent. Pretty impressive for the ill-perceived vicious dog you described in your letter. You said no responsible pit bull owner should ever allow their dog off-leash in a public area, ever. I don’t disagree with that but I also believe that no responsible dog owner period should ever allow their dog off-leash in a public area, ever. Dogs defend territory, they exhibit dominance and if allowed can become protective of their family. All of this behavior can be controlled by the owner. The American Pit Bull Terrier was World War One’s Hero and it has been rated as having one of the best overall temperaments in the US. This breed is used for dog show competition, as therapy dogs, service work, search and rescue, police work and good old companionship. One breed is not more good or evil, vicious or tame, harmful or helpful than another. It is man, the owners who are responsible for the dog’s behavior, not the breed of dog. There was part of a sentence you wrote that caught my eye, it said while it can be argued that other breeds are also bred to kill, you also said pit bulls bite to kill. First, I was unaware that Pit Bulls or Pit Bull type dogs or any dog for that matter is bred to kill. What website can I verify that information on? Any obvious character traits are those that the owner has trained the dog for. Pit Bulls bite to kill, really? All dogs have the potential to bite does that make all dogs killers? You lastly state that you want to ask our law enforcement to be diligent about citing off-leash dogs, especially those breeds particularly known for aggression. Let’s not be prejudice against certain breeds. The citing is being done at the owner level not at the dog level. The same owner that allows his/her Pit Bull to be off leash may perhaps also own a Cocker Spaniel that is also off-leash, so don’t issue a citation for the Cocker but definitely the Pit? The law is the law regardless of the breed because after all, the fact of the matter is this is all about the owner and not the dog.
Geri Tapparo
Healdsburg
Fundamental debate
Editor: After reviewing the references in Lee Allen’s letter to the editor from last week, it is apparent that the water fluoridation debate generally comes down to those who support and believe alternative/natural medicine/dental as opposed to those who generally follow the more conventional medical/dental approaches and concepts.  Fortunately or unfortunately, as in many cases, the truth in these references is in the details and not in the headlines. For example, the Harvard Study report by Lee Allen was a review of Chinese data for an area where natural fluoride concentrations were well in excess of those used for U.S. water treatments.  Hence, the conclusions from this article are not generally applicable to our situation.  At least one reference commented that European countries do not routinely fluoridate their water supplies.  In point of fact, in a number of these countries the natural fluoridate exceeds currently recommended levels and in others the fluoride is often added to salt and/or milk. Several of the other references were from publications authored by natural medicine advocates and their reporting tended to only address their unique points of view. A number of these references tended to be subjective rather than definitive. The tendency is to use words like “might”, “could”, “possibly”, and “may” instead of declarative statements of fact based on high quality technically refereed papers that directly address fluoride issues.  The bottom line continues to be that the preponderance of quality technical data supports the value of water fluoridation for the control of cavities in children, when fluoride levels are properly controlled, as they are in Healdsburg.  I would hope that the voters of Healdsburg would become well informed relative to the use of fluoride in their water supply, and when they do, I believe they will support its continued use.
Vernon Simmons
Healdsburg
Leave it to the experts
Editor: There were two letters to the editor regarding fluoride in the 7/3/14 Tribune. One was from Lee Allen. I don’t know her, or what qualifications she may have as an expert on fluoridation.
Ms. Allen does an admirable job of listing citations to support her point of view, thus lending her letter an air of scientific credibility. Unfortunately, all but one of her citations are from popular media such as YouTube, or organizations with clear anti-fluoridation goals.
I did research her one “sort of” scientific citation, which is actually a reference to an article in the Huffington Post, (a liberal news blog). I then read the actual study on PubMed. It was a meta-analysis of several other small studies, mostly from China, where, in some cases, children are exposed to fluoride concentrations up to 11.5mg/L from natural sources. In the US, fluoride concentrations, when added to drinking water, are around 1mg/L.
The authors found a decrease in IQ’s in those populations with high fluoride exposures, but state that the decrease is small, and may be within the measurement error of IQ testing. They state that the purpose of their paper is as an important first step in evaluating the risk of fluoride in drinking water. It is far from proof that such a risk exists.
I am certainly not an expert on fluoridation, but I am a physician (at least I play one in real life). My point in writing is that complicated issues like fluoridation should be left to the experts, not pseudo experts with an agenda. Failure to do so can result in unintended consequences, such as the recent upsurge in whooping cough cases in Sonoma County. This mini-epidemic has occurred in part as a result of people being influenced by the uninformed rantings of movie starlets and television personalities, who believe, without any substantial proof, that vaccinations cause all sorts of ill effects.
Ms. Allen is free to buy all the drinking water she wants. I hope she will be considerate enough not to poison my environment with toxic and unsightly plastic bottles.
Jeffrey A. Rapp, MD
Healdsburg
Be informed
Editor: Thanks to the many Healdsburg voters who signed the petition allowing voters to choose to keep or remove fluoride from the water supply. The initiative will be on the ballot in the fall. Now, we all must become informed on this issue.
Most communities, including Healdsburg, voted to add fluoride to the water supply in the fifties or sixties. Today, many of those same communities worldwide are reassessing that choice. Recent research has questioned the safety of fluoridated water. We need to learn what that information is in order to make an informed and healthy choice for our community.
I would like to suggest that the Healdsburg city council hold a forum to discuss this issue. This should be an open discussion where people can voice varying points of view with representatives from both sides of the issue presenting research on fluoride.
I emphasize that this should be an intellectual exercise and not a political forum. At its essence, this is not a political issue — it is a health issue. We all want to make the right decision for our children, ourselves, and for the health of the environment.
I encourage you, the city council, to address this question and provide a forum for this very necessary discussion.
Barbara Wentzel
Healdsburg