Dog(pit bull) Credited With Saving Teen From Fire

http://www.comcast.net/ ^ | 9 29 06 | Associated Press

[freepatriot32]

FORT MEYERS, Fla. - A pit bull who was recently adopted by a family after wondering onto a construction site may have saved a teen girl from a house fire on Friday.

Jerrica Seals, 17, was already safely out of the house by the time firefighters arrived, the News-Press of Fort Meyers reported.

"She called me screaming," said Leticia Vega, 36, the sister of Seals' boyfriend Javier Garcia, 23, who owns the home. "She said the dog woke her up barking, jumped on the bed and bit her on the leg."

Seals was taken to the hospital for a checkup, but Garcia said she was going to be fine.

Deputy fire Chief Steve Clyatt said blaze appears to have been caused by a bad extension cord on a window air conditioner.

Vega said her oldest brother, Gabriel Garcia, found the dog while he was working.

"He didn't pay no mind to it," Vega said. "He just kept working and the dog just stayed there so he brought it home. He doesn't usually bark. He's real friendly."

[Salamander]

LOL!
That was just an exuberant love slap....;D

They are *very* powerful dogs and even their tails are strong.

I had Dobermans for most of my life and had never dealt with the "happy tail problem".
Then I got Ibizan Hounds who have extremely long and strong tails.
[they use them as rudders when running 40 mph]
I have learned in the last 16 years to squint my eyes and raise a deflective arm when the pack goes a little overboard when I come home.
The baby got me right alongside the head this morning when she jumped on me to wake me up.
I think I saw stars for a second.
[talk about rude awakenings]...;]

[PleaseNoMore]

I have said more than once my pits tail is the deadliest feature about her.

[kanawa]

No offense, but you apparently don't understand the meaning of the word evil and/or you don't understand plain English.

Evil in my experience is contingent on the ability to make a moral choice,
to know good from bad and yet still choose bad.
I never assign evil to inanimate objects, impersonal forces or dumb animals.
Guns are not evil, nor are hurricanes or dogs.
On this planet only humans are capable of perceiving or committing evil.

No doubt others have a different view but I'll stick to my "unplain" meaning.

[potlatch]

LOL, I was going to write, "a good PitBull story for a change" until I read this;

"She said the dog woke her up barking, jumped on the bed and bit her on the leg."

Still laughing...

[Salamander]

Your definition is flawless, in my not so humble opinion.

[endthematrix]

Thank you.

[Darnright]

Look how the news account desperately tries to paint the dog in a less than flattering light:

>"She called me screaming," said Leticia Vega, 36, the sister of Seals' boyfriend Javier Garcia, 23, who owns the home. "She said the dog woke her up barking, jumped on the bed and bit her on the leg."<

Now, if this had been Lassie, the paragraph would have been written, "the dog woke her up barking jumped on the bed and pulled on her leg".

But, it's a pit bull, so the pooch was obviously getting a good bite in before it saved the girl.

[Finny]

Every conservative forum needs its nanny-state contingent, no?

Yes, just as every conservative forum needs its "NO DOGGY PROFILING!!!" contingent that views profiling dog breeds as politically incorrect and freedom-threatening as profiling young Middle Eastern men in airports. The errant poodle or spanies poses the same danger to the community as the errant pit bull or rottweiler, dammit, because it's only right!! NO DOGGY PROFILING!!!

*sigh* The feminized "dogs are people too!" defenders of these creatures are the real liberals-in-disguise whose whine "nanny-staters!!" is their cop-out response. For the record, I don't want to see the dogs banned. I want to see breed-specific hard-core regulation, I want to have the right to shoot these dogs on-sight if I see them running loose in public, and I want to walk down any damned public street I please without worrying about being critically injured or killed by some asshat's powerdog.

[proud_yank]

Thanks for the ignorant and arrogant post.

Where did I say anything about profiling? There are plenty of breeds (huskies, chows, heck, even jack russell terriers can be nasty) that are 'aggressive', other than pit bulls. Given that such a label exists, and it is well established that certain breeds are more aggressive than others, that 'profiling' already exists.

As far as I am concerned, shoot any dog that attacks you, and I believe in the owner being held accountable for an attack regardless what breed it is. In some states now, a dog barking at you is considered a 'viscious dog', which is well beyond absurd.

If you shoot someone's dog for merely running off-leash in public, I hope it lands you in jail.

[GMMAC]

Surely if your expressed position made any logical sense whatsoever you'd be able to name at least one group of experts in the field who are in agreement with it.

Until you can cite & document even one which does, it's perfectly reasonable to dismiss you out-of-hand as an emotionally-driven social fascist blowhard.

Doubtless no one opposed to your 'breed ban' solution has any dispute with people protecting themselves and/or literally 'throwing the book' at specific irresponsible dog owners.
However, legitimate conservatives favor solutions based upon individual responsibility & personal accountability as opposed to nanny-statist shotgun dictates which quite plainly reject both.

[Fair Go]

Banning dogs is a left-wing conspiracy fueled by PETA and other groups on the left.

[Finny]

Not too long ago, a lady was unloading groceries from her car. She propped open the door to her house to do so. Arms loaded with groceries, she got to her kitchen, put down the groceries, turned around -- and found TWO pit bulls/mixes that had escaped from their yard in a home several blocks away, in her kitchen and growling at her. Search FR threads for one by a woman whose little dog was attacked and seriously maimed by a couple of pit bulls, and you can read about this incident.

Now maybe you ain't been keepin' up on current events, to paraphrase Hudson, but all you've got to do is search FR right here using the words "bull," "bulls," "pitbulls," and "pitbull" and you'll see a long, long list of recent and fairly recent news reports about kids, old people, and average folks (not to mention goats and other livestock) being either killed or critically injured not by huskies, Jack Russell terriers, or chows, but by Rottweilers, pit bulls/pit bull mixes, and presa canarios. If you think that the lady in her kitchen would have been facing an equally dangerous threat had it been two Jack Russell terriers in her kitchen, you're fooling nobody but yourself.

There is no great coverup and conspiracy to hide all the other Americans who are killed or critically injured in proportionate numbers by dogs of other breeds. Hence the call by many misguided people to "ban" pit bulls and Rotts, etc. I think banning is the wrong solution. The best solution that offers the best live-and-let-live for all dog owners, is to have breed-specific regulation on dogs, singling out the very very few dog breeds that have a record of killing or critically injuring more than three innocent Americans a year. Pretty simple and reasonable, but pit bull/mix rottweiler, etc. defenders INSIST that this is not right, that all vicious dogs are equally dangerous. The vicious out-of-control Jack Russell terrier has very little chance and zero track record of killing or critically injuring an adult human, except by fluke. The pit bull/mix, Rottweiler, and Presa Canario, on the other hand, has a long and well-documented track record of both.

What you prefer to call "nanny staters" are people like me who are sick and tired of NOT being able to walk on public streets in public neighborhoods or be able to unload groceries from the car FOR GOD'S SAKE without the threat being faced with some loser's pet that's of a breed that has a history of killing or critically injuring adult humans. As much as I wish this was a concealed-carry state, it is not, and in fact, a person shouldn't have to carry a side-arm to protect themselves from asshat dog-lovers' PETS.

[Finny]

Hey pal -- where have I ever said I'm for breed-banning?

[BluH2o]

You're obviously snoozing on what they consider their couch.
However, being family, they're willing to share.

[GMMAC]

"I don't want to see the dogs banned. I want to see breed-specific hard-core regulation ..."

Despite attempting to talk out of both sides of your mouth, "breed-specific" anything amounts to the same thing.

Accordingly, I stand by my position:
No reputable body of animal experts in North America (other than PETA ... snicker !!!) endorses any form of "breed-specific" legislation.

Hey, if I'm wrong, merely name & document just one.

[Fair Go]

And you can add Australia to that list. The Australian Vetinary Association is also against beed-specific legislation.

[kanawa]

I think banning is the wrong solution.

Why?

You know that irresponsible people will ignore your proposed breed specific regulations.
To insure that these monstrous attacks do not occur we must ban all vicious breeds.
It is ridiculous to wait until there are three or more fatalities before acting,
Surely one fatality is one too many.
Follow the lead of Ontario.
They examined dog fatalities in Canada
and found one historic fatality attributed to the American Staffordshire Terrier.
That was enough to have the breed proscribed. That's how a government that cares acts!
There is no reason for anyone outside of law enforcement or the military
to have a dog that is big and strong enough to kill a person.
Since, and I can attest to this, a ban will not stop people
from continuing to breed these outrageously dangerous animals,
police, by-law and animal control officers
must be given extraordinary powers of search and seizure.
Kudos to the liberal government of my province for removing the impediment of warrants,
as well as for implementing the brilliant tactic of reverse onus.
Let the burden be on the owner to prove his dog
is not one of the banned breeds/types.
This a small price for society to pay so that we can be safe.
These ticking time bombs must be sought out and removed, torn away if need be,
from their owners and immediately put to death.
None of this "grandfathering' of existing dogs,
it's just not worth the risk if it can save even one child .
If it comes down to people, so called responsible or not,
having a breed of their choice and the rest of us being able to live without fear,
our need trumps their selfish desires and so called property rights.
The "animal professionals" can talk until they're blue in the face about how extremely rare
these occurrences are compared to the number of dogs out there
and how the vast majority of these dogs never cause any problems but that isn't the point.
We read the papers and either know a bad dog or someone who knows a bad dog,
we are justifiably terrorized and something must be done.
Without safety we have no freedom.
If the owners of these power dogs don't like it, too bad.
There's something seriously wrong with anyone who would want one of these beasts anyway!

[dervish]

it didn't take long..

[proud_yank]

Until reading that, I never gave any thought just how dangerous walking into my own kitchen or backyard really was.

Following your logic, especially citing the media as the foundation by which it is made, guns and SUVs should be banned, or heavily regulated.

What specifically would you have done, regarding these specific breeds? You don't really say. Would you suggest tighter fencing laws, require they be on a line at all times, never allowed outside a house?

The question I have is, assuming a golden retriever attacks someone (which happened to my Mom, unprovoked and it came from nowhere), why should it be treated any differently than if it were a pitbull?

The vicious out-of-control Jack Russell terrier has very little chance and zero track record of killing or critically injuring an adult human, except by fluke.

I haven't checked the data, but I don't think you would have to dig too deep to conclude that the majority of fatal and non-fatal dog attacks involve children.

Honestly, I think that down in the PRC you have a far greater chance of being harmed or killed by a criminal than you do by someone's dog.

[GMMAC]

"... SUVs should be banned, or heavily regulated."

So-called - since neither the American or Canadian Kennel Clubs recognize any such 'breed' - 'pit bulls' are, thanks to the msm, the SUV's of dogs:
Although many readily identifiable breeds of dogs are known to occasionally attack humans or pets, when's the last time a headline appeared about a "German Shepherd attack"?

One of the main reasons 'breed ban' laws don't work is that there's no agreed upon or, more importantly, legally binding definition as to what constitutes a 'pit bull'.

Most animals so designated are actually mixed breed dogs. Accordingly, a 'pit bull' is essentially any - sometimes medium-sized and/or muscular - dog which a liberal or msm reporter subjectively doesn't like the look of.