12/20/2025
We look at the image from Bremerton—the chaos, the mobility scooter, the eight people injured, and the loss of a dog named Jasper—and the collective nervous system of the public goes into a state of high alert. The immediate, human response is to reach for a legislative eraser. We want a law, a total breed ban, a signature on a piece of paper that promises us this specific brand of violence will be deleted from our neighborhoods. I understand that impulse. When you see the damage these animals can inflict when they are unmoored from human control, it is terrifying. But as a trainer who has spent my life in the dirt with high-drive dogs, I have to tell you that nature does not care about your signatures. Nature does not care about your "good intentions" or your "nanny dog" stories. Nature cares about the genetic blueprint, and right now, we are failing to read the manual.
When we talk about "Pit Bull" or "Mastiff" types, we have to stop talking with our hearts for a moment and start talking with our eyes. We have to look at the animal at the end of the leash for what it actually is, not what we want it to be. I love these dogs. I love their intensity, their grit, and their "will to do." But we have to be brutally honest: genetics are not a "suggestion." They are the hard-wired framework of the soul. When you have a dog historically forged for "gameness"—the biological trait of persisting in high-arousal, high-conflict tasks even in the face of physical pain or exhaustion—you are holding a loaded spring. That doesn't make the dog "evil," but it makes the dog consequential.
The statistics we see aren't a coincidence, and they aren't just "bad owners." While it’s true that any dog can bite, not every dog is biologically equipped to carry out a sustained, predatory assault. A Golden Retriever might have a "soft mouth" or a bite-and-release reflex bred into its history for retrieving game. A dog bred with Terrier tenacity and Mastiff power is genetically wired to "grip and shake." That is not "bad vibes"; that is biology. It is a mechanical reality. When that genetic switch is flipped by predatory arousal—what we call "hitting the drive"—a dog that was a "good boy" five minutes ago becomes a biological machine focused on a single task. In the Bremerton case, that task was the Ridgeback, Jasper. And when four dogs of that phenotype join in, you aren't dealing with a "dog fight" anymore; you are dealing with a pack in a state of peak arousal where the human handler has become irrelevant.
This brings us to the uncomfortable question of the breed ban. Many people in my circle ask if we would just be better off without them. But if you ban a breed, you are just treating a symptom of a much deeper cultural illness. The "illness" is a society that refuses to respect what a dog actually is. If we ban the Pit Bull tomorrow, the same irresponsible owners, the same "rescue" advocates who minimize drive, and the same backyard breeders who ignore stable temperaments will just move on to the next powerful phenotype. We’ll be right back here in ten years talking about Presa Canarios, Cane Corsos, or Belgian Malinois. The problem isn’t just the shape of the head; it’s the vacuum at the other end of the leash.
In Washington State, our legal framework—RCW 16.08—is a reactive system. It is a set of rules designed to clean up the mess after the blood has already hit the pavement. The law tries to classify dogs as "potentially dangerous" or "dangerous" based on their actions. It is built on a "one-free-bite" or "one-free-kill" philosophy, and in the world of high-power breeds, that philosophy is a death sentence for someone else’s pet. By the time a dog triggers the legal definition of "dangerous," the damage is irreversible. Jasper doesn't get a second chance because the law waited for a "first incident" to acknowledge the dog's capacity for violence.
We also have to talk about Strict Liability. Under RCW 16.08.040, Washington law is very clear: the owner is liable for damages regardless of the dog's former viciousness or the owner's knowledge of such viciousness. If your dog bites, you are responsible. Period. In this Bremerton case, that 28-year-old owner isn't just facing a criminal investigation for violating dangerous dog laws; he is facing a lifetime of financial and moral ruin. Why? Because he treated a high-octane, genetically powerful animal like a casual pet. He left a door open. He allowed a dog on a leash to "break free." He was a passenger in his own dogs' lives.
This is where my philosophy of Responsible Mastery comes in. If you choose to own a dog with this kind of genetic history, you must forfeit the right to be a "casual" owner. You must become a handler.
Responsible Mastery means recognizing that you are holding a "loaded gun" with fur. It requires three things that are currently missing from our dog culture:
First, Biological Honesty. Stop the propaganda. Stop telling people these are "nanny dogs" or that "it’s all how you raise them." It isn't. You can’t "love" the prey drive out of a Terrier any more than you can "train" the herding instinct out of a Border Collie. You must respect the power of the dog so that you have the motivation to contain it.
Second, Environmental Control. In the Washington code, a "proper enclosure" (RCW 16.08.100) is required for dangerous dogs. But for me, the enclosure starts in the mind. A door left propped open is a failure of mastery. A leash that can be "broken free from" is a failure of equipment and awareness. Mastery is the constant, vigilant understanding that your dog is a predator, and it is your job—24/7—to ensure that predator never has the opportunity to make its own decisions.
Third, the Emotional Brake. True mastery is being the "on-off switch" for your dog’s nervous system. If you cannot stop your dog’s drive with a single, calm command—if you have to physically wrestle your dog to stop a behavior—you have no business in a public space with a powerful breed. The owner in this incident was one of the eight people injured. That is the ultimate proof of a lack of mastery. He couldn't even control the dogs he lived with when the "red zone" was hit.
So, would a breed ban be better? No. What would be better is a Ban on Ignorance. We need to stop the "entitlement" that says every human being has a right to own any dog they want, regardless of their skill level. We need to stop "saving" dogs with clear aggression issues and rehoming them into unsuspecting neighborhoods. We need laws that recognize that genetics are a reality, and if you want to own a "consequential" dog, you should be required to prove—before an incident happens—that you have the physical and mental infrastructure to handle it.
We need to stop pretending every dog fits every lifestyle. Until we start respecting the genetic blueprint and holding the human end of the leash to a standard of mastery, Jasper won't be the last victim. We don't need fewer dogs; we need better handlers who are brave enough to look at the truth of the animal they chose to lead.
Bart De Gols
We have an update on the case of four dogs that attacked several people and a beloved pet on December 17th at the intersection of 2nd Ave. West and West Earhart Street in unincorporated Bremerton.
The incident began when a Pitbull, on a leash, broke free and attacked a Rhodesian Ridgeback being walked by its owner, who was in a mobility scooter.
When the pitbull attacked, three more Pitbulls belonging to the same man ran through an open door and joined the attack.
The Ridgeback, named Jasper, died from injuries inflicted by the Pitbulls during the attack.
Eight people were injured during the melee, including the owner of the Pitbulls.
The 28-year-old owner of the Pitbulls is under investigation for violation of Washington State's Dangerous Dogs law
(RCW 16.08.100)
