The Denver Post Thinks Pit Bull Service Dogs Deserve Discrimination

Yesterday, The Denver Post published an editorial making the paper's position on pit bulls crystal clear: They want to keep Denver's ban on pit bulls, no matter what.

Earlier this summer, the U.S. Department of Justice took on breed discrimination against service dogs, ruling that it violates the Americans with Disabilities Act. If you have a service dog who happens to be a pit bull, you won't have any problems in Boulder, but in Denver, your dog, and therefore you, are not welcome.

The ruling makes The Denver Post nervous that the people who have sued the state on behalf of their service pit bulls might just have a shot at winning an exemption. The Post is less concerned with making sure people with disabilities have equal access to their city than they are with the idea that there might be pit bulls going undercover as service dogs.

The Post is worried that "if a parent is concerned that a neighbor with a pit bull is creating a danger to children and notifies the police, how will it be possible for police to respond?"

Notice the language — this has nothing to do with a dog who poses an actual threat. If I lived in Denver, I'd want police to spend their time protecting the community rather than running to neighborhoods every time a mother who's been reading a little too much Denver Post thinks her neighbor's short-haired dog is a pit bull.

I also wouldn't want my tax dollars to go toward the salaries of six full-time evaluators whose job it is try and identify pit bulls. Studies have shown that visual identification, even by experts, is highly inaccurate. Last year, a dog was impounded for three months, culminating in a five-hour-long hearing to determine whether the dog had any pit bull in him. What did Denver's experts have to say for themselves? One testified that he was a trained member of the pit bull detection team, but had no idea if the evaluations were accurate. Another said that "he cannot recite the characteristics of the breed off the top of his head," but he knows a pit bull when he sees one. That's reassuring.

The Post concludes: "It's foolish to overlook the fact that dogs are bred differently and some breeds have for generations been selected for their ferocity." Why, yes, that would be foolish ... if it were based in reality. With a little research, The Denver Post would find that pit bulls have long been bred for stamina, tenacity, tolerance and loyalty ... traits that have always made them excellent family dogs (even when they were being exploited in bloodsports) and contribute to their success as service dogs.

The Department of Justice stated that, while local breed restrictions might be well-meaning, they end up screening out the exact breeds of dogs who have been exemplary service animals for decades.

Denver has never conducted an audit of their ban or a single study to see if it's effective, yet there are reams of research proving that breed bans (and specifically Denver's breed ban) don't work, so why would The Denver Post go to the trouble of printing an editorial reaffirming their anti-pit bull position in the face of federal law?

In July, The Denver Post's John Davidson wrote an article about the media bias against pit bulls. Davidson writes, "Reporters, for whatever reason, have become accustomed to the notion that stories about pit bull attacks are newsworthy." He encourages the media to listen and think.

And now we need to encourage his bosses to do the same. Tell The Denver Post to apologize for their discrimination against innocent pit bulls; all dogs should be judged based on their behavior, not their looks, especially the devoted service pit bulls who provide their human companions with independence. The misinformation and discrimination has to stop.

Photo: Veteran Glenn Belcher and his service dog Sky, courtesy of The Animal Law Center