25 Responses to “Where the dangerous dogs are in Minneapolis and St. Paul, and why we’re telling you about it”

» Next comment page »

1. MIchael Says:
   June 1st, 2009 at 8:38 am

   This is great! Nopt only does it shed light on which dog breeds are more inclined to bite a stranger, it shows exactly where the culprits are! Yes, I’m sure many of these incidents are accidents, but this definitely should be publicly available. Thanks for the awesome map and thanks for making my city more transparent for safety’s sake!

2. Larry Says:
   June 1st, 2009 at 10:14 am

   I think the map is a great idea but I disagree with Michael on his comment that it shows which breeds are more likely to bite. This map does not take into account the most important factor which is total breed population. If there are 1000 labs in the city and 10 are dangerousand 10 are declared dangerous thats .01%. If there are 5000 shepards and 15 are declared dangerous thats .003% which statistically speaking would mean the shepards are much less likely to bit.

   Media hype over certain breeds actions combined with people making decisions based on partial data is what creates breed prejiduce and doesnt do anyone any good.

3. Ryan Says:
   June 1st, 2009 at 10:29 am

   I’m curious, what is the story with the “dangerous cat?”

4. Mike Says:
   June 1st, 2009 at 10:37 am

   I think there needs to be a map of stupid people. Given there are dangerous dogs out there. But a lot of these incidents, I’m willing to bet are due to stupid people not knowing how to approach a dog and the dog gets scared and defensive right away. I was raised around dogs my whole life. If a dog doesn’t look like it’s interested in meeting you - it’s not. Don’t force the issue. If a dog is in it’s yard or with it’s owner - approach with caution, it will protect it’s territory.

5. Kim Says:
   June 1st, 2009 at 10:47 am

   This is not a map of dangerous or menacing dogs addresses, this is a list of people’s names and addresses who are irresponsible pet owners, ignorant and not in control or their pets. Are you kidding me? A Cairn Terrier weighing in at a whopping 5 lbs cannot be controlled? Someone has bigger issues. Where is the responsibility of 1. the owners to ensure their dogs are leashed and supervised to ensure their dog is not put in the position to allow this to happen, and 2. Where is the responsibility of the parents to teach their kids and themselves that you always ask permission pprior to petting a strange dog, and there is also a right way to approach them. Once again the dogs will take all the responsibility even though they are the innocent victims once again. I am a responsible pet owner and I cannot say that my dogs will never bite. I will not however, allow them to be put in a situation where that is allowed to happen. I have had every “aggressive” breed through my house from fostering and rescue and have never been bitten, nor have my friends or child owho have come in contact with any of them because I keep the dog safe, and tell those who are coming near how they need to be approached. The only good thing I can see of this map is that it has a list of not only the pit bulls (who used to be America’s family dog if you do your homework) but it shows a list of all breeds indicating that any animal can be dangerous when not trained properly, allowed to live with irresponsible people, or will react naturally when put in a fearful situation.

6. Michelle Says:
   June 1st, 2009 at 10:58 am

   I, too am cutious about the cat story.

   The idea of a map is useful to local residents so that they know if there are indeed dangerous animals in their area. I would have no idea if my neighbors were irresponsible pet owners without a tool such as this one. You can’t tell if someone is responsible by the breed of pet they own or how they ‘look’. Stereotyping just doesn’t work.

   As far as which breeds bite, the data just shows what dogs are owned commonly and which ones have been ‘caught’ having issues. It simply cannot be used to determine a specific breed’s potential for being dangrouus.

   I personally keep my dogs behind a pirvacy fence for their protection as much as if not more than for the public’s protection. Just the other day we caught some kids lobbing pine cones over the fence into the yard trying to taunt the dogs. Unfortuantely, most of the time it’s the human ‘victims’ word with no witness to speak on behalf of the dogs.

7. James Shiffer Says:
   June 1st, 2009 at 11:42 am

   Folks, I don’t have much detail on Ralph the cat, but
   the city database indicates Ralph bit a person and bit
   an animal to earn the “potentially dangerous” label.

8. Bluebird74 Says:
   June 1st, 2009 at 11:55 am

   There are more “dangerous” labs than pit bulls, hahaha.

9. bill Says:
   June 1st, 2009 at 12:52 pm

   Are their no dangerous dogs in the subburbs or is the data not available?

   How about some buttons for all, all dangerous, and all potentially dangerous dongs?

10. James Shiffer Says:
    June 1st, 2009 at 1:24 pm

    Bill - good questions. Given the number of suburbs, and the absence of any central database, it would have been a much more sizable and time-consuming task to gather the info metrowide. Still, it’s something we should consider for the future. As for filtering dangerous and potentially dangerous, we felt that the different colors served that same purpose

» Next comment page »