Posted on 01/14/2007 5:00:17 AM PST by 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.
(Excerpt) Read more at mysanantonio.com ...
Not only can we read and understand that we can (apparently unlike some others)
also read and understand the conclusions of the study...
Conclusions—Although fatal attacks on humans appear to be a breed-specific problem (pit bull-type dogs and Rottweilers), other breeds may bite and cause fatalities at higher rates. Because of difficulties inherent in determining a dog’s breed with certainty, enforcement of breed-specific ordinances raises constitutional and practical issues. Fatal attacks represent a small proportion of dog bite injuries to humans and, therefore, should not be the primary factor driving public policy concerning dangerous dogs. Many practical alternatives to breed-specific ordinances exist and hold promise for prevention of dog bites. ( J Am Vet Med Assoc2000;217:836–840)
>There are 56 breeds of dog that have taken human lives all over the world, and all of them have been reported as that breed when it was known, except for the pit bull. The CDC study so often referred to on this board is a testament to how innacuracies in media reports can turn any popular breed into a monster.
They use every type of Retriever/Lab breed and separate them all, all the spitz-type dogs have their own individual categories, even mixed breeds like wolf hybrids get their own, but any dog even remotely resembling a pit bull, (and some that don't) are all grouped together into "pit bull type".<
Thank you for making this point. For example, in 2005, the Staffordshire Bull Terrier was ranked 84th out of 154 AKC breeds with only 856 individuals registered throughout the entire country. This is a breed that typically weighs around 35 pounds, and is expensive. Not your average meth lab protector.
That said, this breed gets lumped into the pit bull statistics, so it is included in breed ban legislation. Never mind the fact that no Staffordshire Bull Terrier has killed anyone in the US, it's still "a dangerous pit bull".
I believe that in times of crisis, we humans demonstrate the ethics/behavior we've already learned and practiced. That's why it's so important to teach our kids and ourselves the proper logic and ethics *before* a crisis. I am certain that we are not limited by animal instincts.
(Semi-off-topic and part of my concerns about bioethics: The new "public health ethics" is based on the idea that there are different ethics under public health crises such as Katrina or bird flu scenarios. And so, they are practicing and setting up utilitarian rules for these conditions. I keep reminding these people that "self-" should precede "sacrifice.")
More than likely, your dog perceived your fiance as the boss - the head of the pack.
No kidding, I have heard of only one historic fatality by an Amstaff in all of Canada,
but some drug dealer and his dog's "trainer" get chewed up by their "pit bull" dog "Vise/Vice",
the media hyped it and the newly elected Liberal government in Ontario stoked the fear and hysteria,
and despite expert testimony from vets, dog trainers, humane societies and others,
who pleaded for a comprehensive approach to the problem of dog attacks,
based on education, increased penalties and rigorous enforcement of existing laws,
proceeded to ban Amstaffs as well as other breeds
while providing absolutely no funding for enforcement.
Of course responsible owners are following the law closely
but there is massive flaunting of the restrictions by others.
It was a feel good, look we're doing something, it's "for the children" dontcha know law,
meanwhile a couple of weeks ago a kid got his face ripped off by a couple of non-banned dogs
that had a history of having an irresponsible owner
and not a frikkin thing in the "pit bull" legislation did anything to prevent it.
It reminds me of what happened 2 years ago at Christmas in Toronto.
Shoot out by rival gangs in the downtown
and a innocent young girl gets killed.
Guess which one the liberals proposed...
Crack down hard on the gangs
or
Outlaw possession of handguns entirely.
Despite all the threats from muggers, murderers, pedophiles, rapists, jihadists etc some Freepers seem to have nothing better to think about than to deprive someone of a much loved companion and pet that has harmed nobody. Now if they campaigned to ban the muggers and murderers along with the irresponsible dog owners then they could claim to be working towards improving the world. By claiming that they would shoot anything that resembles a pitbull it seems that they are providing the anti-gun lobby with valuable ammunition. As the anti-gun lobby can also point out, far more people (including children) are killed by guns than by dogs.
>Of course responsible owners are following the law closely
but there is massive flaunting of the restrictions by others.
It was a feel good, look we're doing something, it's "for the children" dontcha know law,
meanwhile a couple of weeks ago a kid got his face ripped off by a couple of non-banned dogs<
Of course. In my state, not that long ago, 3 pit bulls killed an old lady and the dog she was walking. The knee jerk reaction? BAN PIT BULLS.
These 3 dogs were already in violation of the most basic dog law. They were NOT on a leash. They were also in violation of an existing, non-breed specific dangerous dog law the animal control officers DID NOT ENFORCE.
Like banning pit bulls will suddenly make everyone obey the law.
Sure it will.
Your sarcasm is noted, but all I was thinking about when I posted my comment was two of my horses (out of 6 we had) that I loved more than anything and worked with for years. I could crawl all over them, we could jump any fence and I do anything with them. They trusted me and would do things for me that no one in my family could do with them. But there were a handful of situations where they spooked or had something happen and they reacted like an animal would. They acted very remorseful it seemed afterward, but it still happened. I wasn't implying that my experience was better than yours, just that I had learned my lessons with animals by living it. My kids aren't being raised on a farm, but I have been drilling into their heads that they NEVER approach a dog even if they know it, especially if the dog is without an owner. Even if the dog is on a leash, they need to ask before petting it, etc. We just added dogs that have been hit by a car or seem sick to that list of don'ts.
We had to put down a beloved lab a couple of years ago. That is the hardest thing to do, I am assuming that is why you have had to put down a dog. That just sucks.
AK! Thanks for correcting me. I am not sure how I read it to say (or assumed) the dog was chained. Thanks for the correction!
susie
"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. "
The other breeds may have been more common years ago, but right now, the more common breed IS the pit bull. In fact, it may be the number one most popular breed in the U.S., perhaps second. Either way, this breed far outnumbers most other breeds by a large margin, yet the number of deaths has not risen, as far back as there have been counts.
It is simple mathematics. If a truly unstable, dangerous dog were to emerge as the most popular dog, the average number of dog-related fatalities would have to increase. Instead, the average has stayed the same, and the only thing that has changed is the breed at the top, and it has always been the most popular strong breed.
In some parts of Canada, pit bull type dogs have been banned. There has been one death caused by this type of dog in the country's history. Deaths by Huskies, Malamutes, and other similar dogs far outnumber any other breed there. Is it the cold that drives the dogs to "turn"? Nope. It's mathematics.
Those dogs are the most popular in Canada, and being strong dogs, they have the capacity to inflict severe damage. Those breeds are not vicious. They are not dangerous. They are not unstable. They are popular, and the percentage of deaths compared to their numbers is exactly the same as pit bulls (0.000002%). The same goes for every other breed that is strong enough to harm a person.
Emotions often get in the way of facts. Yes, it is a tragedy when any human life is taken by a dog. It is not any less tragic, any less permanent, if the dog is not a pit bull. The human life is gone forever, no matter the breed involved.
Pit bull in fatal attack euthanizedSitting crestfallen inside Animal Care Services on Thursday, Jesse Banda knew his dog had to die.
Six days earlier, the pit bull had fatally mauled his neighbor Amber Jones. An animal lover, the 10-year-old girl was bitten in the neck and stomach as she tried to free the dog from Banda's chain-link fence. The pit bull had leaped over it and gotten hooked by his collar, the victim's relatives said.
City employees allowed Banda to pet Chuey one last time before they injected the animal with a lethal chemical around noon. Stricken with remorse and sadness, Banda, 29, struggled with unknowns.
Why did Chuey, a dog that played well with toddlers and had never before shown signs of aggression, suddenly snap? What could Banda have done to prevent this "bad dream"?
For city officials, the girl's death has raised questions about whether the dog was properly confined to Banda's backyard — a requirement by city code. Robert Jones, the victim's father, said his daughter's death underscores a need for better enforcement of leash and enclosure laws.
Loose dogs are "all over this place," said Jones, standing in the alley behind his South Side home in the 700 block of Topeka, where the dog attacked his daughter. "They're everywhere."
Jones is not the only city resident concerned about unrestrained dogs. Rebecca Taylor, a resident of Heritage Meadows on the far West Side, recently complained that no one walks through her neighborhood without a stick to fend off animal attacks.
"This is no joke," Taylor said.
Jef Hale, director of Animal Care Services, said the city is authorized to impound loose dogs and issue citations to their owners. But city officials must first witness an animal outside of its property.
"It's really the responsibility of the owner to ensure that their animal does not get off their property without (the owner) on the other end of the leash," Hale said.
City code mandates that animals be confined within an enclosure that prevents them from escaping — a requirement that can become a challenge considering the dexterity of some dogs.
"I've seen dogs climb 8-foot fences before," Hale said. "It's just amazing. It's like Spider-Man."
Banda said Chuey could "easily" leap over his chain-link fence, so he kept the dog chained to a tree whenever he and his wife were away. No one was at the Banda home when Amber Jones was attacked, he said. It's unclear if the pit bull was chained when the attack occurred, said Lisa Norwood, spokeswoman for Animal Care Services.
The city department is investigating the incident. Police said Banda will not be charged in the girl's death.
James Crosby, a canine aggression expert, said keeping a dog chained could make it more aggressive — a warning echoed by Hale, who added that owners of powerful dogs should take safeguards seriously.
"Understand when you have a dog of this particular breed, you have an additional responsibility to ensure that these animals are properly socialized," Hale said. "Neutering the animals certainly can improve disposition and decrease aggressive behavior."
Banda's dog had not been neutered.
According to Crosby and Hale, fatal dog attacks are rare. About 20 people are killed by dogs every year in this country, they said.
Three days after Amber Jones was killed, a man was seriously injured in Bexar County when his pit bull attacked him. That dog had not been neutered, Norwood said.
Banda went so far on Thursday as to wish he never had moved behind the home of Amber Jones, who aspired to become a veterinarian.
"I told (her mother) if I could trade my life for her daughter's I would," Banda said. "But I can't."
The media report is good in that it provides some information on bite prevention,
the critical importance of responsible ownership
and the need for rigorous enforcement of existing laws.
It high-lights the problem of inadequate fencing and the danger of chaining dogs.
I wish they had answered the question of why this dog "snapped"
by pointing out the danger of approaching an animal in distress.
I don't understand why he is not being held legally responsible. Something is missing.
Infuriating.
The dog didn't "snap".
Dogs don't "snap."
The adults involved in this story were paying ZERO attention to an explosive situation.
I agree with you. Dogs do not snap, they show signs of aggression long before people notice, and sometimes, unfortunately, these signs aren't seen until it's too late. However, once a dog kills a person, regardless of breed or upbringing, the safest thing to do is to have it euthanized. Yes, the dog was probably lashing out in defense and may have been disoriented and in pain, but it still took a life.
It's really sad that even this situation is being viewed as "another dog of peace attack" when really it's about owner and parent responsibility. Everyone knows you don't touch an injured animal because you could get attacked. Perhaps the dog had on previous occasions been caught, but this time it might have been really caught, choking, or the collar being caught could have been cutting him. I have seen injured people lash out at doctors on hospital documentaries.
I have seen injured people lash out at doctors on hospital documentaries.
Yes, it happens. I stopped wearing my lanyard because a patient grabbed it and starting choking me. Lucky for me someone else was in the room to help.
As far as "snapping" goes, humans are good at it. Especially when they feel threatened.
"As far as "snapping" goes, humans are good at it. Especially when they feel threatened."
I agree. In fact, I think it's safe to say the only animals that "snap" ARE humans. Animals do a pretty good job showing what they like and dislike, if you know how to read them. People carry things with them until they get unbearable. Dogs seem to be pretty cause-and-effect kind of creatures, and they definitely don't have any natural reason to hide their "emotions" until the boiling point.
I read somewhere recently that every year people are bitten more often by other people than by dogs.
Not all dogs are honest, though:-) I have a lab ornery enough to command all the tennis balls in the yard. What can I say? He's smarter and quicker than the females, but not a bit more lovable.
As for intelligence and quickness, I did have a female Pitbull that would run rings around him. She was the best dog I've ever known.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.