Girl, 10, was killed trying to help dog

San Antonio Express-News ^ | 14 January 2007 | Michelle Mondo

[Racehorse]

Lori Jones heard her daughter's screams. She ran into the backyard and saw the pit bull on top of her daughter. It had bitten Amber in the stomach and was now attached to her neck. Frantic, Amber's mother tried to push the dog off. A man rushed to help and added the needed strength to get the dog away from both mother and daughter.

. . .

As they waited for the ambulance Lori Jones held her hands over the wounds in her daughter's neck and stomach. The dog continued to hover. Amber's father, Robert, drove from his job at the Hilton Palacio del Rio downtown to University Hospital, where Amber was airlifted.

Amber died just a couple hours later at about 6:30 p.m.

. . .

The family wants Amber's death to be a lesson to others about the dangers of dogs. But, they said, they had no reason to think this dog, whose name they did not know, would ever attack their daughter.

"She was in the back just like she had been 100 times before," Megan said.

[spacejunkie]

Wow! I'm impressed...thanks for the great post :)

[KJC1]

Great post.

[SALChamps03]

You can try to sugar coat what it means to own one of these dogs all you want. It's a foolish thing to do.

[SALChamps03]

You Pit bull advocates can argue all you want about what sweet little safe darlings they are. I'm sure in the hands of a trained professional, everything you say is true. Unfortunately, a significant number of people who choose to own them don't know diddly about how to properly train, restrain, and care for them so that tragedies won't occur. They have no business around young kids. They have no business being kept on a chain for hours on end. Too often this is the case. Therefore, I don't want one around me or my children. So, if I see one wandering around my neighborhood, he's going down for the dirt nap. Period.

[kanawa]

I suppose I could try and sugar coat what
it means to own one of these dogs,
but why would I?
It would be a foolish thing to do.

Owning any dog requires the owner to be responsible.
All dogs have the potential to attack and cause damage.
Responsible ownership becomes all the more acute
with dogs large enough to potentially inflict greater damage.

You can try and have a discussion by calling all owners idiots.
Just don't be surprised when you're not taken seriously

[sgtbono2002]

Yeah Youre right. Lets just keep breeding these killer dogs and reading more stories about their victims.

It gives us something to do.

[sgtbono2002]

Yes youre right too I am a dirty lib because I believe these dogs are inherently dangerous. Lets not pay any attention to the proof. The stories of kids being eaten by these monsters.

Have fun with yours, but my advice is buy plenty of insurance for when it eats some kid and you are sued.

[Fair Go]

If all dog owners were responsible, if all dogs were loved and properly cared for and never mistreated, and if people would realise that children and dogs often don't mix, we would see the end of dog attacks. In the meantime, those looking for a cause, whether they be from the political right or left, will continue to call for breed specific legislation. Even if they succeed, the dog attacks will continue because of irresponsible dog owners. Where do they go to then?

[solosmoke]

"Lets not pay any attention to the proof. The stories of kids being eaten by these monsters. "

Wow. So nevermind the experts on this subject that wholeheartedly disagree with you and the rampant ignorance of reporters everywhere calling any dog attack a pit bull attack, even when the photos they provide show otherwise.

I'm going to stick with good old fashioned education and real proof on this one. Reporters are not dog experts, and many people don't even know what a real pit bull looks like. The Center for Disease Control used to provide statistics on dog related fatalities, but they stopped because the media is too unreliable for them to trust.

And by the way, the only reason you hear more about pit bull attacks than any other is the same reason you heard about Dobies and Rotts in the past. The media does not have to print every bit of news. They can choose what they want to print, and they do, based on sales. They are not a non-profit agency set on informing the public. They are in a business of selling papers, and there's tons of money to be made off of whatever they can demonize.

[kanawa]

So, if I see one wandering around my neighborhood, he's going down for the dirt nap

Take a look at post#115
Which one would you shoot?

I suppose a case could be made for shooting any of the dogs pictured
because they were "wandering" around the neighborhood.
Course we would probably find some gun grabber
that would call your behavior indiscriminate and irresponsible
and use it to justify their contention
that people can not be trusted to be responsible gun owners

[sgtbono2002]

You do what you like. I could care less. I see a Pit Bull running in a pack or running without a leash in my neighborhood and I get rid of it.

[solosmoke]

Just some information I thought you might want to read. If you don't want to learn anything new, that's your perogative. Just be careful what you shoot. It may not be a pit bull, and you could have a lawsuit on your hands.

[RightOnline]

"...and IMO could have happened with any breed of dog."

Hardly. Haven't seen any reports of border collies or labs munching on toddlers in some time.

They're a dangerous breed ......and need to be 'bred' out of existence.

[Fair Go]

I wonder how long it will take Fido's enemies to realise that the biggest threat to them and their children does not come from anything travelling on four legs, but on two legs?

[solosmoke]

"Hardly. Haven't seen any reports of border collies or labs munching on toddlers in some time. "

Well, you're in luck.

Here's a Lab that apparently missed the memo about being a nice dog:

http://www.kristv.com/Global/story.asp?S=5842161

Oh, and another one:

http://www.suburbanchicagonews.com/heraldnews/news/160046,4_1_JO05_DOG_S1.article

Here's one where initially it was a pit bull mix, but somehow they got the story straight and it turned out to be an Australian Shepherd:

http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/local/16224755.htm

Here's a basset hound story:

http://www.guardonline.com/?module=displaystory&story_id=37737&format=html

Another Black Lab:

http://www.woi-tv.com/Global/story.asp?S=5697769&nav=1LFX

And how about Dalmatians?:

http://icnewcastle.icnetwork.co.uk/sundaysun/news/tm_headline=bite-attack-dog-must-be-put-down&method=full&objectid=18010015&siteid=50081-name_page.html

And Border Collies?:

http://www.eurekareporter.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?ArticleID=16636

Collie:

http://www.24dash.com/communities/11602.htm

Golden Retriever:

http://www.exmouthjournal.co.uk/exmouthjournal/news/story.aspx?brand=EXJOnline&category=news&tBrand=devon24&tCategory=newsexj&itemid=DEED06%20Sep%202006%2014%3A04%3A11%3A237

Another Lab:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/devon/5288388.stm

Yet another Lab:

http://www.eveningstar.co.uk/content/eveningstar/news/story.aspx?brand=ESTOnline&category=News&tBrand=ESTOnline&tCategory=zNews&itemid=IPED24%20Aug%202006%2010%3A09%3A54%3A187

Lab again:

http://www.lep.co.uk/ViewArticle.aspx?SectionID=73&ArticleID=1680147

Lab and Shepherd:

http://www.fredericksburg.com/News/FLS/2006/072006/07262006/209101

Greyhound, just for variety:

http://www.desertdispatch.com/2006/115340530556560.html

Lab....again:

http://www.southbendtribune.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060623/News01/606230327/-1/NEWS01/CAT=News01

Golden Retriever:

http://www.nbc15.com/news/headlines/3039446.html

Another Golden:

http://www.wavy.com/Global/story.asp?S=5001566&nav=23ii

Yellow Lab:

http://www.eastbayri.com/story/294259040571188.php

There are so many stories just like these out there that either don't get reported or are shrugged off by reporters because the breed is not controversial enough. Bite statistics and dog related fatality studies show that there are no breeds that are either inherently vicious or completely trustworthy. They are dogs. They don't think like us, and what we think is unprovoked isn't always the case. Any dog caught up in something can panick and retaliate. Any Veterinarian will tell you that is why muzzles come in all sizes there.

[Excuse_My_Bellicosity]

In recent years, the dogs responsible for the bulk of the homicides are pit bulls and Rottweilers:

"Studies indicate that pit bull-type dogs were involved in approximately a third of human DBRF (i.e., dog bite related fatalities) reported during the 12-year period from 1981 through1992, and Rottweilers were responsible for about half of human DBRF reported during the 4 years from 1993 through 1996....[T]he data indicate that Rottweilers and pit bull-type dogs accounted for 67% of human DBRF in the United States between 1997 and 1998. It is extremely unlikely that they accounted for anywhere near 60% of dogs in the United States during that same period and, thus, there appears to be a breed-specific problem with fatalities." (Sacks JJ, Sinclair L, Gilchrist J, Golab GC, Lockwood R. Breeds of dogs involved in fatal human attacks in the United States between 1979 and 1998. JAVMA 2000;217:836-840.)

Ain't nothing irrational about it. After a pit bull attacked a kid two blocks from my house last year, I'd have to outmaneuver about 50 neighbors to get a clean shot. Pit bulls are a scourge.

[solosmoke]

Notice it says pit bull TYPE. That means anything remotely resembling a pit bull can be called so, and thus reported. There are at least 16 pure breeds that look like pit bulls but are not, and get regularly reported as pit bulls by the media. The numbers and breeds used for this study were taken from media reports, which are flawed, at best, which is why reputable agencies, like the CDC, no longer publish such studies.

Another thing to remember: Pit bulls right now represent about 10% of all dogs, large and small, making them pretty much the most popular breed, and they number from four to six million. Rottweilers, although less popular than they have been, are still pretty common. No, they don't represent 60% of all breeds, but take all the small ones out, and they just might. There are 150 breeds recognized by the AKC, and twice as many by the UKC. The vast majority of these dogs are medium to small, rendering them fatally dangerous only to small children.

If it is a breed problem, why is it that throughout the years studies like this have been done, the average number of deaths has not gone up? Sure, the most popular strong dog will always be the one killing more people, but over the years the number of human deaths has remained the same, whereas the number of pit bulls has steadily increased. If we get rid of them, another strong dog will be the popular one, and will also take over as the dog to hate, as has been done since studies and media reports were available.

Four to six million pit bulls is an awful number of dogs. The percentage of pit bulls compared to their population that actually cause a person harm is 0.000002%, which is the same percentage for other large breeds compared to their populations. Mathematically, biologically, and physiologically, they are no different, just more popular right now.

[RightOnline]

So your point is that, statistically, attacks from the likes of pit bulls and dobermann's are proportionate to attacks from other breeds....that other, more common breeds are every bit as dangerous as pit bulls.

Whatever you're smoking solo, it must be good.

[org.whodat]

"Studies indicate that pit bull-type dogs were involved in approximately a third of human DBRF (i.e., dog bite related fatalities) reported during the 12-year period from 1981 through1992, and Rottweilers were responsible for about half of human DBRF reported during the 4 years from 1993 through 1996....[T]he data indicate that Rottweilers and pit bull-type dogs accounted for 67% of human DBRF in the United States between 1997 and 1998. It is extremely unlikely that they accounted for anywhere near 60% of dogs in the United States during that same period and, thus, there appears to be a breed-specific problem with fatalities." (Sacks JJ, Sinclair L, Gilchrist J, Golab GC, Lockwood R. Breeds of dogs involved in fatal human attacks in the United States between 1979 and 1998. JAVMA 2000;217:836-840.)

Now you went and done it, posted something those dog owner cannot read are understand.

[cricket]

(Brytlea) If one is going to chain a dog outside (a poor practice that can easily lead to aggression) the dog should not be chained near enough to a fence to get over it and get hung up. I don't think that's rocket science (that is not aimed at you, but at the owner who was clearly negligent).

(Well, the dog was not chained; but it's collar was too loose; (making it too easy to get caught on fence); and the fence inappropriate for this dog.)

(hocndoc) This story says that the dog had been caught just like this before and she had helped him, just as she did this time.

Yes, I got that...and agree with your conclusion. . . My position has been that first and foremost the responsibility here for this tragedy, falls first to the owners of the dog. . .

as per my post(s):

. . .there were surely 'forewarnings' here; including the jeopardy even of dog himself; by repeatedly getting his collar caught in chain-link fence; (if even once; though it appears more often - see post #8) . . . and so from that perspective; one could reasonably offer that it was an accident that did not have to happen..