In light of the March 17th dog attack of a Spanaway woman by a pitbull in Mountlake Terrace and the animal abuse case of a pitbull puppy in Federal Way burned by acid, apparently on purpose that same day, animal advocates and people in general all over the world are angry.

Pictures of the pup on the website 'Pasado's Safe Haven' are wrenching to see and are evidence of the cruelty humans are capable of and calls and emails to their website have come from all over the U.S., Canada and Europe. Based on the evidence and information I have seen, it is likely that the abuser will be found.

Equally hard to hear about is the horrific attack that the Spanaway woman had to endure while being dragged and bitten by a full-grown pitbull who escaped it's apartment lanai enclosure, stopping only after being shot by police who arrived on the scene a few minutes after the attack began. The dog's owner was also bitten while trying to control the attacking animal. In both incidents, the dogs were later euthanized.

At press time, a reward for information leading to the arrest of persons involved in the puppy abuse case had topped $15,000 with the Seattle Humane Society chipping in an additional $2500.

The woman mauled in the Mountlake Terrace dog attack was reported to still be in serious condition. After considering the elements of both of these stories, I did an informal poll of people I know to see how they felt about the problem of vicious dogs and about pitbulls in general.

Of the ten individuals I communicated with, six were victims of dog bites, though none of the bites involved pitbull dogs.

A Weimaraner, a Doberman Pinscher, three mixed breed mutts and a Collie accounted for the attacks, none of which were serious bites. Interestingly, all the respondents but one reacted with fear or anger about pitbulls and their apparent propensity for viciousness.

It is understandable when you consider the image that pits are saddled with.

The condensed history of pitbulls goes back to Roman times, and in one version, during the time of Minos in Crete, the sport of 'bullbaiting' (in which a bull is tethered to a post and the dogs are loosed onto it) was popular.

Roman tribes domesticated and bred dogs to use in the cruel sport and over time distinctive, specialized breeds began to emerge. By the 1700's, two primary bull fighting dogs had developed, both of which were referred to as 'bulldogs'.

It was thought during this time that the use of the dog on a bull had a tenderizing effect on the meat. This was a myth perpetuated by dog wranglers and gamblers in order to encourage participation and increase the profitability of gambling. It wasn't until the 1800s that continued selective breeding had created dogs that were similar to the pitbulls we know today.

A law introduced at that time prohibited people of low economic means to own a 'sporting dog', thereby significantly diminishing the practice of bullbaiting and another law introduced in 1835 outlawed the practice altogether and an alternative sport known as 'ratting' came to the fore. A number of rats were placed in a pit with a dog for a specified time, and this, reportedly is when the term 'pitbull' was first used.

In May of 2004 the city of Auburn passed a non-breed specific law requiring dog owners to train their dogs when they have been found to be aggressive. The City of Algona had a pitbull law for 16 years which was recently re-drafted to be more inclusive in that it is now a 'dangerous dog' ordinance and any dogs deemed to be dangerous are not allowed to live in the city. This seems a little extreme to me. Perhaps a more stringent set of dog ownership rules, including the retention of insurance and serious monetary fines for abusers would be better.

While it is apparent that anyone who owns a dog has a responsibility to control it, some breeds could be said to have a predilection for aggressive behavior. In particular, pitbulls get singled out due to their strength and propensity for fighting, which is exacerbated by the use of the breed by bad elements like illegal drug manufacturers and dealers for protection.

Also because of this, in the confusion of dog attacks involving other breeds, the incidents are sometimes attributed to pitbulls simply because of their reputation. That said, it is widely agreed that because the dogs are strong and could be said to have a 'high prey drive' they should be handled differently than smaller, less aggressive breeds.

Out on a walk this weekend, we met a fellow dog walker who we know, and while our dogs tussled with his over a tennis ball, we talked about the two stories. Brian felt that dogs with aggressive behavior should not be off leash in public areas and he told us about a man with a pitbull who frequents the same area we do with our dogs.

The man approached Brian with his dog and said, 'Is your dog friendly?' as he reached down to untether his dog. Brian said that before he could tell the man that he did not want the dogs to mingle, the pitbull made a bee-line for his dogs and tore into both of his golden retrievers, stopping only when the man was able to collar his pitbull.

Angry words were exchanged and both parties left. This is troublesome for Mrs. Anthony and me, as we have seen this same gentleman and his pitbull ourselves.

The dog was leashed on the occasions that our paths crossed, but now we worry that the same thing could happen to us. To be fair, it's not the breed that concerns us, it's the individual on the end of the leash.

Ultimately, as long-time dog owners ourselves, Mrs. Anthony and I feel badly for everyone involved in the these unfortunate incidents, but we are in agreement that the responsibilities in dealing with any dog, be it labeled as vicious, dangerous or not, lies with the owner and not with the breed or type of animal.