Iowa politician who pushed for pit bull ban seeks mercy for his Labrador that bit a neighbor

Sioux City, Iowa, City Councilman Aaron Rochester was instrumental in a successful campaign last year to ban pit bulls within city limits. Among the most damning evidence he presented in support of the ban was animal control department reports showing that pit bulls were the breed most apt to bite people.

Rochester had a bit of egg on his face, then, when his own dog -- a yellow Labrador retriever named Jake -- bit a neighbor and was deemed vicious by the Sioux City animal control department. Rochester maintained that Jake, "a great watchdog," was only trying to protect his young daughter and a friend, who were playing nearby. But the bite required five stitches, and the victim maintained he'd done nothing to provoke the attack.

A city code requires that vicious dogs be euthanized for the public's safety. But Rochester appealed to Sioux City's police captain, Pete Groetken, for clemency. 

"I think it will be very difficult for me to reverse a decision by [animal control] unless there was strong evidence that there was a need for the animal to protect the owner's property," Groetken told the Sioux City Journal before making his ruling. The ruling came last week in the form of a certified letter to Rochester: Jake is vicious.

Rochester says he will once again appeal in hopes of saving Jake, this time to a special arbiter appointed by the city manager. In an interview with the Journal, he stressed that even the victim of the attack, who has declined to be named, "doesn't want anything to happen to Jake. He does not want him put down."

Since Groetken made his decision, Sioux City pit bull owners have urged officials to repeal the ban, in part because Rochester's case has shown that pits aren't the only breed capable of biting people. (The ban allowed those who already owned pit bulls to keep their dogs, provided they complied with other regulations, such as mandatory registration, but forbids future pit bull ownership in the city.) 

-- Lindsay Barnett

Photo: A pit bull stands in a cage at the L.A. County animal shelter in Carson. Credit: Mark Boster / Los Angeles Times

Comments

[L.A. Voter]

A single bite that required just five stitches is enough to condemn a dog to death?! I think the ones who are vicious are the people of Sioux City. On top of which, of course the person who was bitten thinks he did nothing to provoke the bite. No one ever does. That's why you have an inquiry, and expert evaluations before you do something so drastic and final as killing a dog.

Unfortunately there isn't anything resembling justice in this because even though breed specific legislation, i.e. Pit Bull (or any other breed) bans like the one spearheaded by this foolish City Councilman Rochester, are utterly wrongheaded and cruel, as in any situation involving animals, people make the rules and the animals, who have no voice and no vote, are the ones who pay the price for human mistakes.

[lee oreilly]

Let the dog live BUT NOT WITH THIS MAN or his family.

He has shown no compassion whatsoever to the owners of the 'pit bulls' that have never put a paw out of place.Even after this incident HE refuses to acknowledge the truth behind BSL.....it isn't the dog but the owner that makes for a good dog.

In this case,his job as an owner should have been much easier since the Labrador is known to be an easily trainable dog.

He failed his dog, he failed to train contain and socialize this animal.

So let the dog be adopted to a responsible caring family.
Ban him from ever owning another dog.

[Mary T]

This man's dog was obviously not under his control when it bit and wounded the victim. Had it been it wouldn't have been able to get to the man to bite him.

So what's control? Having physical control of your dog at all times. Leashing them when in public, fencing them if they are allowed to run free in the yard.

There's not a dog in the world that won't bite given the appropriate set of circumstances. That's not an exaggeration, it's a simple fact. All responsible dog owners know this and take steps to prevent adverse interactions by preventing them from occurring.

So now this man who stumped for Breed Specific Legislation and succeeded in having pit bulls ripped from their families is faced with the injustice of having his dog destroyed because of his LACK OF CONTROL.

But there's one other fact that is the height of irony in this situation:

- His dog DID attack someone yet he's whining for mercy.
- Breed specific legislation targets dogs that have NEVER attacked anyone - NEVER shown anti-social behavior - NEVER been targeted as problem dogs. It takes them away simply because of their breed type. Behavior is not even considered.

This dog was clearly not under Councilman Rochester's control or the person would not have gotten bit.

It always comes down to responsible ownership. I feel for the dog, but NOT for Rochester. He is reaping what he has sown.

[Chris]

Poetic justice would be to rehome the lab with somebody whose pit bull was killed by BSL.

[Dog Behaviorist]

"doesn't want anything to happen to Jake. He does not want him put down."
Now you know how all the pit bull owners felt when you ruined their lives. Use your brain, if you have one, it's not the breed but the person behind the breed.
This dog should not be punished for this politician's poor ownership - instead, obviously, he should be punished, very simple logic.
How ill minded can people be, "jake is vicious - put it down", "pit bulls are vicious - ban them" - IT'S NEITHER, there is nothing wrong with his dog, or pit bulls. IT - IS - NOT - THE - DOG. IT - IS - THE - OWNER.
Don't think it can be made any simpler than that.

[Dog Behaviorist]

How many times does it have to be said, it's not the dog, or the breed, but the owner, who instigates and is 100% responsible for bites and other negative behaviors. This man's dog should not be punished, pit bulls should not be banned. Instead, quite obviously, this politician should be punished, and dog ownership should be somewhat regulated to ensure all dogs receive proper training, socialisation, and of course, a consistent and knowledgable owner. A possibility is that licensing be required to own certain breeds, as some breeds are targeted by people / groups of people to use for fighting, or as poorly trained guard/protection dogs, which of course is not fault of the breed, but the people who target them.It's all too simple really, but it does indeed seem that this politician's karma retured to him, hopefully he will learn a lesson, not the breed, not the dog, it's the owner.

[John]

If that bite had been from a pit bull, the child would have been dead, or lost their face, or lost an arm or leg.

When pit bulls bite, they do a HUGE amount of damage.

Look at http://www.dogsbite.org

There is a reason that pit bulls are one on the list for killing and maiming people.

It is the breeders and dog fighters in Sioux City that want the ban dropped.

[Roofy Martineez]

John, dogsbite.org is a group of nutjobs who care not one whit for any victim who does not suit their agenda of pushing BSL. It is run by a whacko named Colleen Lynn, who was attacked by Pit Bull "type" dogs, and is on a quest for vengeance. NO intelligent discourse is allowed, as Ms. Lynn WILL NOT post anything which does not agree with, or questions her agenda. For all of their hyperbole about caring for children and victims, they are noticeably absent in concern for any non Pit Bull victims. If your child suffers disfigurement of death by ANY breed other than Pit Bull, dogsbite.org doesn't even acknowledge that child's existence.

And while you're crying about "Pit Bulls", be aware that the term Pit Bull does not even refer to a distinct breed, it's a blanket term for a TYPE of dog, which includes OVER 20 INDIVIDUAL BREEDS and any mix thereof. If a dog has a short coat, a muscular build, a blocky head, and weighs anywhere between 20 to well over 100 pounds, it is referred to as a "Pit Bull Type" dog. And if you take well over 20 breeds and any mix thereof, and lump them all together under one term, then it's no wonder statistics are skewed.

And John, if you had read the story, you would know that Mr. Rochester's Lab bit an adult man, not a child. Using "THE CHILDREN!!" is a common dogsbite.org ploy. And the brreders and dogfighters aren't the ones who want the ban lifted. It's the law-abiding, taxpaying, decent people of Sioux City who happen to own a Pit Bull type dog, and don't want their their family dog, who has never harmed anyone, taken away from them simply because of the way they look. And anyone with an iota of common sense also opposes the ban. Because, quite simply, BSL has failed to reduce bites/attacks/deaths everywhere it has been enacted. It's knee-jerk, feel good legislation that does not one thing to increase public safety.

[Gwen Lebec]

The reason pit bulls are suffering so - more than any breed - is that they are exceptionally powerful. Bites & attacks are exceptionally serious. And there are WAY TO MANY OF THEM. Because the consequences of problems are so much more severe than with other dogs, we do have to consider them specifically. That means that only people who are really dog smart and responsible should have them - maybe up to 5% of the human population. Not everyone should have a pit bull. And no one that wants them for their tough image should ever have one. Whether it is BSL, or social pressure - we need fewer pit type dogs. For their sake. Sadly most arguments against BSL are about human rights and conveniences. More of us need to be focused on reducing the suffering of these dogs, which will continue until they are an appropriate percentage of the dog population - or the human population miraculously becomes more intelligent and caring.

[Shannon]

Right On Roofy!! My "pit-bull" Cupcake is the sweetest dog you will ever meet. She is 14 years old and has NEVER BITTEN ANYONE!!!!!!!!!!!!! We are a very social group of people and have visitors at our place all the time. I have taken her on several group vacations too!!
She loves kids and thinks anything smaller than her is her pup. I would protect her with MY LIFE!!!!! You would have to put me "down" to get my dog away from me.

[Joe Frisbie]

UPDATE!!!!!! I am a Sioux City native and thought you may be interested to know that Jake has been broken out of death row! He's free! Run, Jake! Run! Run, Jake! Run!

http://www.siouxcityjournal.com/articles/2009/08/03/news/latest_news/3dbb3a83423257ce86257607004d4d38.txt

[@AdioPink]

The plot thickens: In the Sioux City news: Rochester's dog was stolen from Animal Control, where it was being held for euthanization... http://bit.ly/1iOW4n

[sherry withrow]

Before you ban a great loyal breed do the research! I have 5 pits and love them. They are the most loyal, kindest, loving and sweet dogs I have ever had. My friend's daughter was bit by their chocolate lab when she was 2 and was in the hospital for 2 days. Labs are rated #2 for most bites. Do they ban them of coarse not everyone has one. I resuced a female pit once that didn't have papers and don't think she was a pure bred. I had to put her down because she bit my husband. I will not tolerate a dog that bites. But my 5 pits are the best. They all have papers and have great temperament and bloodlines. Don't judge and hate do the research first!
From a Pit Bull Lover

[Heidi]

I am a Sioux City native and proud pit bull owner, I have never been more proud to leave that town in my life!! I think it is pathetic that anyone be able to tell us that man's best friend has restrictions!!!! It is true that pit bulls are naturally aggessive dogs but with the right owner and training they will never have to use their aggression. It all starts with responsible pet owners and if they want to restrict anything they should put restrictions on exactly who can own pets!! These animals do not have a say in who raises them and did not get a vote in their ban. Only 10-15% of the dogs in sioux city are registered with the city why are they only attacking this certain breed, euthanizing them because their owners didn't register them. I think Rochester got exactly what was coming to him (God bless Jake) being an irresponsible owner of a lab. Why was that dog not properly chained or fenced in? He felt he had the right to determine the fate of one breed but it was his dog that was deemed vicious??? How does that work???