The Madison City Commission will approve twenty liquor licenses on Monday night. That's one place to buy alcohol for every 320 people.
The commission will then take up regulations to ensure that our well-lubricated residents can watch men (and women?) beat each other into submission. Our city commissioners seem to prefer my friend Shane Gerlach's thinking to local publishing magnate Jon Hunter's: they will review an ordinance to define and regulate fight events within city limits. Evidently we're not going to let Watertown corner the market on "violence creep[ing] relentlessly, slowly into our culture, dehumanizing us and sometimes blurring the difference between good and evil."
The city commission will discuss requiring establishments obtaining a permit for fight events to have a doctor, two paramedics, and an ambulance.
Of course, if the city commissioners are really concerned about demonstrated hazards to public safety, maybe they should consider requiring pit bull owners to hire a doctor and paramedics to attend when guests are coming over.
CH - I think there are many of us in Watertown that hope your community opens the fight thing - wide open - and takes the busienss away from our community's near exclusive SD franchise. You can have the fights, the economic activity that goes with it, and don't forget all the aggravated assaults that a community really needs, so you can see if your ER is in working order!
Madison has had access to booze, honestly I think it makes it less of a temptation for most as its not as forbidden. But I am NOT in support of fight events, regulated or not.
Once again Cory and I agree on something! I hope that our Madison commissioners have the intelligence and foresight to NOT allow cage fighting in our city. This is not a bright idea for economic development, and I don't see how anyone can think it is. Madison doesn't need to implement regulations for cage fighting; it needs to pass an ordinance prohibiting same. Maybe the good people of our city need to attend en masse the next city commission meeting. While I don't live in the city, I do care what happens in our community, and this is lowering the standards of decency if allowed.
Before commenting on anything, what's the definition of "regulation" here? Are we talking regulating as in "Right now, you can't have any fights, but we're making it legal" regulation, or "There's currently no standing on the subject" regulation?
Of the commenters against having regulated fights in your community, which have brought money to Sioux Falls, Yankton, Sisseton, Mitchell to name a few towns without any trouble, have any of you watched the fights or are you just against them by hearsay?
To the Watertown commenter. Your assault didn't happen after a live event it was a televised fight and by all accounts had nothing to do with fighting except that one of those involved trains to be a fighter.
More people will die from High School football then regulated Mixed Martial Arts in the next year. Should you ban that too? Maybe ban basketball and it's injuries too that way you won't need that new gym.
I lived in Madison, I love that town but the closed mindedness will kill a dying community faster than you think.
I guess I personally don't see the difference between allowing mixed martial arts and football or wrestling. What level of violence do you draw the line at? 200 pound men running full speed at one another wrapped in weaponry causing concussive blows to one another. Men slamming one another to a thin mat on a high school gym floor. These two are both acceptable but regulated, officiated fighting is not?
How many fights do you think have happened in bars over football games and other sporting events? Are you going to ban those?
Shane
Just quickly:
325 deaths in High School and College Football from 82-2008
In the entire history of MMA there have been 2 deaths.
Let's know facts before judging.
From Answers.com
According to The National Center for Catastrophic Sports Injury, 325 men and boys have died either directly or indirectly from playing football at the high school and college level between 1982-2008 (26 years). Direct injuries are defined as those fatalities which resulted directly from participation in the fundamental skills of football (such as tackling and blocking). Indirect injuries are those injuries that are caused by systemic failure as a result of exertion while participating in football activity or by a complication which was secondary to a nonfatal injury (such as heart failure and heat stroke).
From Wiki:
A study by Johns Hopkins University concluded, "the overall injury rate [excluding injury to the brain] in MMA competitions is now similar to other combat sports [involving striking], including boxing. Knockout rates are lower in MMA competitions than in boxing. This suggests a reduced risk of traumatic brain injury in MMA competitions when compared to other events involving striking
While competition in the MMA have been occasionally depicted as brutal by the media,[58] there have been no documented cases of deaths after a sanctioned MMA event prior to 2007.[59]
In the period of 2007 to 2010, there have been two fatalities in mixed martial arts matches. The first was the death of Sam Vasquez on November 30, 2007.[60] Vasquez collapsed shortly after being knocked out by Vince Libardi in the third round of an October 20, 2007 fight at the Toyota Center in Houston, Texas.[61] Vasquez had two separate surgeries to remove blood clots from his brain, and shortly after the second operation suffered a devastating stroke and never regained consciousness.[60] While questions have been asked about Vasquez's health before his final bout, no firm indications of pre-existing problems have yet surfaced. The second death stemming from a sanctioned mixed martial arts contest happened in South Carolina on June 28, 2010, when 30-year old Michael Kirkham was knocked out and never regained consciousness. He was pronounced dead two days after the fight.[62]
Shane
Shane, if our town were to ban the fight events we're discussing, I would happily take the stats you offer and advocate banning high school football. You make a compelling case that high school football results in more deaths than these fights... although I might want to see a breakdown of number of events per death, since I'd bet there are more high school football games than there are MMA fights. I can certainly see high school football promoting a culture of violence; what's worse, we exploit children for this sport.
Carter, I think the proposed ordinance fills a gap in current city code. We ban animal fights, we require licenses for fortunetellers, but I don't see an ordinance on the books either banning or regulating boxing matches. Caveat: I have not read all of Madison's ordinances yet!
Number of events is certainly greater in Football Cory, but the number Zero as in number of deaths before 2007 makes is zero percent death whether it's 100 fights or 1,000,000 fights.
http://www.mmawild.com/mma/
Above is list of Professional fighting orginizations this doesn't include regional promotions like the Cage, Tri State, Iron Wolf and many others that operate in South Dakota. In state where MMA is big business like Iowa and California I cannot even begin to imagine the number of promoters running cards.
It's big business worldwide Cory.
Shane
http://www.mixedmartialartslawblog.com/tags/mma-promotions/
just a small taste of the number of independent promotions out there. Somewhere on the internet there is probably a listing of all Global MMA organizations, I just can't find it.
Shane
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Mixed_martial_arts_organizations
121 plus MMA Organizations listed here with 10-15 fights per card you are looking at 30 fighters per card. Not high school football levels but certainly significant.
Shane
it's rather a moot issue isn't it? Madison doesn't have a venue large enough to hold one of these events.
The proposed ordinance says it can't happen in a publicly owned facility, so the armory is out. DPP is owned by DSU, so that's out. Where do they host in Watertown?
Cory I noticed in your post the talk of a pit bull ban. I have actually asked to talk to the commission on this topic myself and the problems with breed specific legislation. Today it is a pit bull or bulldog, tomorrow it is a mastiff or german shepard. Either way you can not punish responsible owners because of irresponsible owners.
I have owned a pit bull for 5 years. I just met another DSU professor who has a great loving pit bull that has no eyes. Pit bulls are used in search in rescue in Brookings. By banning a breed you are not making the community safer, instead you are punishing my 3 year old daughter that sleeps with my dog everynight. My daughter doesn't have a pacifer or blanket, she has a furry 65 pound best friend.
Pit Bulls make great therapy and police dogs. Pit bulls have been owned by presidents and Hellen Keller.
I am not sure of the reaction I will get from this post, but I ask you to think about this issue if it comes up. Please review the following site that gives some great statistics on the way BSL works. http://www.aspcapro.org/are-breed-specific-laws-effective.php
I would also encourage you to read http://nationalcanineresearchcouncil.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/Pit_Bull_download.pdf
My family thanks you for keeping an open mind.
Whatever the animal, Rob, if it bites, it gets put down. I will defer, however, to Kathy Lindsay's opinion.
Some people enjoy raising spiders and alligators, too. That still doesn't mean I'll let my child anywhere near their house.
Nice self-published book. See also:
If I were a betting man, I'd say pit bulls are a bad bet. And I don't bet at all with my daughter. My family thanks you for keeping your door closed and your dog confined and nowhere near my family.
Cory your comments were probably just about one of the most hurtful things someone has ever said. I had a friend attacked by a black lab and those are still all over the place. I actually have three in my backyard that are a major nuisance and the police won't go by.
Cory I know you bike a lot, so do I. How often do dogs that are not on leashes come up to you. My neighbors little yappers once tipped over a stroller with two kids in it when the parents were jogging.
I would love to see the amount of dog nuisance and bites in the city for the last 10 years and compare them by breed.
Not as hurtful as having a dog attack from behind and bite your face. Again, I defer to Kathy Lindsay, who is in tonight's paper talking about the attack. "Lindsay said now that the dog has been euthanized, the children in the home and neighborhood are safer."
I can't imagine the above comments being hurtful to you personally... unless you have invested an unhealthy amount of your identity in keeping this particular and apparently dangerous breed of dog. I intend no personal attack. I simply make a father's request that you never let these partciular dogs that you have chosen to keep property come anywhere near my family.
Going back to the original topic about MMA fighting for a second... The fact that there is (as far as Cory's last post states [note that caveat]) no ordinance whatsoever regarding these types of fights seems like something that should shut down opposed arguments, to me. If there's currently no ruling, that means Cory and I (presumably both with no martial training) could have it out in a bar, or warehouse, or wherever, charge people money (while not spending anything on silly things like "safety measures" and "things that make sure no one dies") and proceed to knock each others teeth out.
If you are a fan of MMA, then regulation is great because it means events will likely get more attention, and bring in more money.
If you are against MMA, then regulation is great because it means events now MUST have safety measures in place to ensure people who are hurt can be tended to, and to ensure that bad things are less likely to happen.
Honestly, it seems like a win-win situation, to me.
Also, just my two cents, but I've known several pit-bulls in my day that wouldn't hurt a fly. I've also been attacked by a poodle. A comment was made earlier about responsible owners vs. irresponsible owners, and that's really what it comes down to. Sure, there are always going to be some bad eggs, but it usually comes down to the owner. More often than not, the owner is the reason a dog attacks someone else. Maybe we should just have dog-owning licenses, or something. Outright banning or restricting some types of dogs just because they seem more likely to attack is unnecessary when 99% of the dogs in question are as well-behaved as any other dog out there.
Three of us were chased (not in Madison) by a viscous pit bull that got loose. It chewed and ripped the wood fence to bits. Those jaws are incredibly powerful. At my home here I was cornered by two growling Rottweilers that routinely got out from my immediate neighbor. He said I lied when clearly his emotional attachment leaves him unable to see straight. I've been afraid to use my full back yard for 3 years. In my book having a high risk dog is like owning a cop killer gun rather than a shot gun. Simply no reason for it when there are many other wiser choices. Yes, even small dogs can be aggressive but they're not gonna rip your face off. That poor woman is way too forgiving. With an attack like that the scars may not just be physical. Hope she recovers soon.
Yankton holds MMA Events outside, at the Kelly Inn/Minervas and at the 4H grounds.
I am 100% for regulation of MMA wherever it is held. It is backyard promoters that hurt the sport. Honest men and women trying to make an honest living should not be punished.
I'm still not in favor of banning pit-bulls, I'm going to have to amend my opinion that pit-bulls are not prone to attacking. According to this study (http://www.dogsbite.org/pdf/dog-attack-deaths-maimings-2010.pdf) pit-bull terriers account for 54% of dog attacks leading to bodily harm, and 45% of dog attacks leading to death.
Note: Rottweilers have been involved in more attacks, in proportion to their numbers.
I'm not saying that every pit-bull is vicious. As I said, I've met some very nice ones, but I cannot, in good faith, say they are not more prone to attack, when evidence points to the contrary.
But add to the mix that pit bulls are only about 5% of dog ownership, so a very small percentile causes a very high percentage of dangerous attacks. Why would a reasonable, peaceful person insist on legal ownership when the numbers show how dangerous they are? A dog owner couldn't just as easily enjoy owning a less dangerous breed?
Running the numbers, I get slightly above 1% of pit-bulls being involved in attacks. I do think pit-bull owners (or owners-to-be) should at least be very, very thorough when buying a new dog. Look into the history of the mother, etc., to make certain the pit-bull they're buying isn't prone to violence.
I don't think I have a dangerous dog. John if you want come meet my dog. At the same time I will take you behind my yard to three black labs. At that point you tell me which of the 4 dogs is the meanest. Hands down it won't be mine. In fact I will let my three year old handle the leash on mine. Why is it the police have been called so much on my neighbors yet the cops are afraid of them, but never one complaint about my dog? Also when you look at those statistics they lump all bull breeds into a group can you pick the pit bull. Here give it a shot http://www.pitbullsontheweb.com/petbull/findpit.html
I invite anyone here to email me and come meet my dog. come walk my neighborhood and tell me if the city of Madison doesn't need better dog ordinances not breed bans.
Carter, it might be that currently, if you and I wanted to put a skinny-guy slugfest (I suppose there could be a market for that!), the cops might still be able to shut us down under the disorderly conduct ordinance (see Section 13-3).
Cory: I'm sure you're right, but when there is something with no regulations whatsoever, there's always a way to do it, if you look hard enough. In my opinion, at least, regulation (especially where safety is involved) is hands-down better than no regulation, regardless of whether or not the fights are to your liking.
Rob: I'm in agreement with you. During my daily runs and/or walks, I've run across quite a few dogs that aren't on leashes. There's one (fortunately friendly) that I often see wandering my neighborhood. My cat does not approve.
I think bans tend to be overused and overly-reactionary in general, so without very solid evidence, I'll always be against them, but I would definitely say we need better dog ordinances.
I certainly believe your dog is friendly. Judging from the stats, though, pit-bull (and rottweiler) owners need to be incredibly careful when choosing a dog, considering their tendency towards violence. 99% won't attack, but 1% is significantly higher than other dog breeds.
As a side note, why do people let their dogs out without leashes or chains? Especially with the speed so many people take the roads around town...
Rob, I'm not saying your dog is dangerous. I'm saying the breed statistically has a propensity to attack and cause great harm. People who enjoy a loving pet can easily find that in an animal without those characteristics, so why would they not pursue a safer breed? For what reason would they insist on right of ownership for a statistically dangerous breed? To what extent does their insistence contribute to legal ownership of these animals by people who are either incapable or for reasons other than yours attracted to dangerous animals. The end result contributes to a higher rate of deaths and serious injuries. But for many dog ownership is about emotion, so logic is not involved.
These are the 9 breeds that bite the most. Please protect me from them as I am unable to make wise choices myself. Where do we start dropping off poodles for the purge?!?!
1. German shepherd
2. Chow chow
3. Poodle
4. Italian bulldog
5. Fox terrier
6. Mixed chow chow
7. Airedale
8. Pekingese
9. Mixed German shepherd
Top 10 most dangerous Dogs
10. Dalmatian
Dalmatians are very protective dogs and can be aggressive towards humans. They are very active and need lots of exercise. They have very sensitive natures and an excellent memory. This bred is famed for their intelligence, indepedence, and survival instincts.
Weight: 40-70 lbs.
Origin: Yugoslavia
9. Boxer
Unlike their name suggest, these dogs are not typically aggressive by nature. They are bright, energetic and playful breed. Boxers have been known to be "headstrong", which makes it a bit difficult to train them but with positive reinforcement techniques, Boxers often respond much better.
Weight: 50-70 lbs.
Origin: Germany
8. Presa Canario
Originally bred to guard and fight with cattle, an attack by this dog has been described as hopeless for the victim. They are a guardian breed with man-stopping ability, incredible power and a complete lack of fear.
Weight: 80-115 lbs.
Origin: Canary Islands
7. Chow Chow
These dogs can be aggressive if poorly bred. The Chow Chow may appear to be independent and aloof for much of the day but needs constant reinforcement.
Weight: 50-70 lbs.
Origin: China
6. Doberman Pinschers
Dobermans are great guard dogs for their alertness, intelligence and loyalty. They can be agressive dogs when provoked. The typical pet Doberman attacks only if it believes that it, its property, or its family are in danger.
Weight: 65-90 lbs.
Origin: Germany
5. Alaskan Malamutes
These dogs are very energetic and active. If they are bored, they can become destructive. That's why this dog needs lots of exercise to be happy.
Weight: 75-100 lbs.
Origin: Nordic
4. Huskies
Very energetic and intelligent dogs. Not considered a good guard dog because of its personality characteristics and gentle temperament. A 2000 study of dog bites resulting in human fatalities in the U.S. found fifteen such fatalities (6% of the total) were caused by "husky-type" dogs between 1979 and 1997.
Weight: 44-66 lbs.
Origin: Alaska
3. German Shepherds
These dogs are intelligent and very alert. They are highly used by local authorities such as the police K-9 unit. German shepherds are known to be fearless and confident dogs.
Weight: 70-100 lbs.
Origin: Germany
2. Rottweilers
Rottweilers are known to be very aggressive dogs because of their keen territorial instincts. That's why they make great guard dogs.
Weight: 100-130 lbs.
Origin: Germany
1. Pit Bulls
A pit bull is a fearless dog that will take on any opponent. They will lock their jaws onto the prey until it's dead. Pit bulls have a reputation of mauling people to death and they are highly sought for dog fighting.
Weight: 55-65 lbs.
Origin: United States
Dogs most often make wonderful pets, however in certain circumstances, any type of dog can be dangerous. Even friendly dogs, can inflict great harm in the wrong circumstance.
ROUND 'EM UP!!!!
Of course, Kathy Lindsay was supposed to protect herself as well. But hey, I don't mind a law that establishes significant penalties in any dog owner whose animal gets out of control and bites others and which takes their dangerous animals out and shoots them. I also have no problem reminding pit bull owners that, because of the unique character of their dangerous animals, they have an added burden (not a mark of distinction) to keep their dangerous creatures away from my child.
Shane awesome find. Also did you know golden retrievers are in that mix as well.
@John. I never wanted a pit bull I also had the feelings that you all are thinking. Then I met a pit bull that was used for therapy. Then I met a pit that was used for search and rescue. Now I was somewhat interested. Then I began doing some research on the history of the breed and all the things everyone else finds out about them. Still I was unsure. And then I found information about how they use to be called nanny dogs and were one of the more popular breeds as they were great to leave with kids.
This will be my last post on it because I won't change your mind. However I want you to take a look at some things.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25214356/ns/health-pet_health/t/beaten-down-dog-vick-case-has-his-day/
http://news.change.org/stories/pit-bulls-americas-dogs-help-wounded-warriors
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2222440/posts
http://www.pbrc.net/
http://www.realpitbull.com/myths.html
Your right John at this point it is emotional, however reading stories like this made me make the right decision by adopting a pit bull.
This morning at 5:30 am I had the pleasure of listening to my neighbors dogs bark all morning. The police can't do anything because their are no laws in Madison.
Before we do breed specific things, lets look at breed neutral laws.
-AntiTethering laws (to save the dog that has been chained up for 5 years next door, A chained or tethered dog is 2.8 times more likely to bite than a dog who is not chained or tethered.)
-Mandatory Spay and Neutering laws (More than 70 percent of all dog bite cases involve unneutered male dogs, An unneutered male dog is 2.6 times more likely to bite than is a neutered dog, 97 percent of dogs involved in fatal dog attacks in 2006 were not spayed/neutered,)
-Mandatory City Registration (why was this repealled in 2007, why was it so cheap, Let's increase this so that people don't have so many dogs and we can pay someone to enforce them.)
-Leash Laws that are enforced.
Breed Neutral Laws help to force responsible ownership.
The loss of 630 lives in bicycle/motor vehicle crashes in 2009, just under two people every day of the year in the U.S., is a terrible toll. While lower than the 760 fatalities in 1998, bicycling crashes were on the rise just a few years ago. These numbers represent approximately 2 percent of the total number of people killed and injured in traffic crashes in 2009. The number of reported injuries involving bicyclists has followed a similar fluctuating but downward trend, from 68,000 in 1993 to 41,000 in 2003, only to rise again in 2005. Reported injuries in 2007 dropped again to 43,000 representing another decline, but rose to 52,000 in 2008. The number of reported injuries involving bicyclists dropped to 51,000 in 2009. However, we know from research into hospital records that only a fraction of bicycle crashes causing injury are ever recorded by the police, possibly as low as ten percent.
Quick Facts
* Bicyclist Deaths in 1998: 761
* Bicyclist Deaths in 2009: 630 (NHTSA Traffic Safety Facts)
* Reduction in bicyclist deaths between 1998 and 2009: 17 percent
* Bicyclist Injuries in 1998: 53,000
* Bicyclist Injuries in 2009: 51,000 (NHTSA Traffic Safety Facts)
* Reduction in bicyclist injuries between 1998 and 2009: 4 percent
* The total cost of bicyclist injury and death is over $4 billion per year (National Safety Council).
Please keep your pedaling away from child. You have a weapon of death between your legs and quite frankly I'm afraid and am going to over react to these statistics!!!
Now obviously I'm being a smarty pants, but I hope you all are getting the point that if any of us works hard enough we can find the statistics to back up any claim we want.
Shane
the above stats are from bicyclinginfo.org
You're right Shane. These dogs are the worst of the worst. Just way too dangerous. Although people really do seem to like them as pets, I'm starting to think it would be best to ban all dogs. Bottom line it's just not worth the risk. Clearly dog ownership is a black and white issue with absolutely no in between. While we're at it, lets do the same with guns, football, and these fighting events and make our country a safe place for everyone.
Thank you Comrade John for joining my party. Now if you will just get in that line for indoctrination, then that line for your required uniform and that line for you job assignment and that line for your rations I think all will be fine.
Stay calm...we're safe now.
*HA!*
(Hoping people get the point)
Shane
First they came for the smokers,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a smoker.
Then they came for the mixed martial artists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a mixed martial artist.
Then they came for the pit bulls,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a pit bull.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left to speak out for me.
Prohibition doesn't work. Madison: consider a tax on weaponized dogs like pit bulls.
@Larry maybe we could tax dogs based on a tempermant test. We set a score. But what if a pit bull scores better on a tempermant test than another breed does that mean that breed should have to pay a higher tax than the pit bull. We might want to be careful on what we wish for here.
I also think the same logic should apply to people. Lets say a person has shown in the past aggressive behavior, public outbursts, uncontrolled tempers and has caused harm to individuals or made poor choices that could have harmed others, should they be taxed as an uncontrollable person. Should military (and I love military) veterans, wrestlers, football players, hockey players, police, people trained in martial art, and other people that have had aggressive sports or jobs also be taxed. @Cory any thoughts on that. I know of a couple adults then in that case that are more dangerous around my kids and would welcome them to stay away.
My thoughts? Show me adults who are more dangerous than your dogs, and I'll tell those adults to stay away from my child as well.