Posted on 04/26/2006 9:14:27 AM PDT by Wristpin
GLOVERSVILLE - Michael Ward, the owner of the 2-year-old pit bull that attacked a small bichon frise March 31, will be taking the dog back to its breeder Saturday to fulfill his court obligations to remove the dog from Gloversville without having to euthanize him.
"I called [the breeder] and he didn't want the dog to go to someone he didn't know and he wanted to make sure the dog had a safe home," Ward said. "Everybody thinks that he's a vicious dog because of the breed. Everybody is being discriminating against it. [The breeder] breeds them and he knows better than that." Ward said he plans to meet the breeder halfway between New York state and Virginia. Ward is giving the dog, named Blitz, back to his breeder, but is not charging the breeder any money.
"I had two years with the dog that I wouldn't want to trade for anything," Ward said.
On April 7, Gloversville City Court Judge Vincent DeSantis ordered Ward to study alternatives to euthanasia for his dog after the judge determined the dog was too dangerous.
Ward said the dog had been neutered prior to the incident and a microchip has been implanted in the dog.
Dogs can sense and smell fear. If people weren't so hyped-up with media propagated fear every time they see what they THINK is a "Pit Bull", I wonder if outcomes would change?
Yipes! Can't get a CCW here. This is a non-carry state. Yeah. And a LOT of people really followed that law during the Rodney King riots. Little known LA trivia: a lot of people carried. Respectiable middle-aged ladies, salesmen, delivery drivers, contractors ... I believe it because I talked to enough of them.
As you know by now, I think banning the breed is a poor solution. There must be a better way. I think that "rehabilitation" of these dogs is hokum. Snuff 'em if they end up in a shelter, and save rehabilitation for smaller, less lethal dogs. Pets are NOT "people too."
What gets me is how so many around here insist that the problem is in our heads, that propoganda and a media agenda is why we think dogs like pits and Rotts are the problem. You and I have personal experiences that rather put the lie to that ... and you know, here's another thought .. maybe the media doesn't report incidents where labradors, bull dogs, setters, shepherds, and other breeds "go off" and kill and maim innocent humans not because readers wouldn't care, but because ... those incidents don't happen! Just a possibility, mind you.
Is fear of a dog that will attack a damned horse "media propagated"?
They wouldn't be in the media if they weren't tearing kids' faces off, or de-scalping helpless old ladies working in their gardens.
The owners of these ticking time bombs had better start sensing fear; those of us who've been on the receiving end of a snarling pit aren't going to put up with this crap much longer.
That dog won't hunt.
Do you have a right to own a hand grenade? How about an F-14 with ordnance?
Is conservatism being a good neighbor? Is conservatism not engaging in risky behavior like drunk driving? Is it conservatism choosing a breed 90 times more likey to kill than another breed? Having others subsidize your insurance coverage?
I know what isn't conservatism...When the dumbass pit owner gives a stupified look and says "The dog was never violent before" as a lady gets loaded in the ambulance.
It comes down to genetics, risk and liability.
Perhaps you overlooked the fact that I'm from Louisiana; I remember quite well when this happened. Hunger's a powerful thing. If it would have been as dramatic, you'd have probably seen footage of poodles attacking cats or rats attacking poodles with the same level of ferocity.
The point is the dog went straight for the mouth area and hung on. Genetic programming from the "Bull Baiting" days..Possibly.
If had my druthers, I'd take being attacked by a vicious pekingese over a bulldog, pit bull, or Rott. Why is so hard to admit that all vicious dogs are not created equal, and that there is a problem today with the popular "powerdogs" -- or is that they're "more equal" than others?
Ooooh! That's gonna leave a mark!
I have no responsibility to be a good neighbor. I have a responsibility to not place you, your property or your family at undue risk. Many pitbull owners do just that, day in and out, and it never gets reported. Many people who do not own pit bulls violate those responsibilities every day.
Is conservatism not engaging in risky behavior like drunk driving?
Big difference between risky and irresponsible. My risk is none of your d@mn business. If I place you and yours at risk, it is your concern and rightfully so. If you put me or my dogs at risk (i.e., my property) by overt violence, legislation, etc. when they've done nothing to you or anybody else is being an intrusive nanny statist who obviously is willing to trade freedom for a sense of security despite the admonition of our founders.
Is it conservatism choosing a breed 90 times more likey to kill than another breed?
No less than my right to choose an SUV that is XX% more likely to roll over, or kill somebody else if I fail to take the proper precautions with it. Will you be the arbiter of riske percentage? Should that be an elected or appointed position? Should we place that position under homeland security or create a whole new department, say the Ministry of Canine Risk Assessment?
"Having others subsidize your insurance coverage?
Nobody subsidizes my insurance coverage, nor have I asked anyone to do so. If the Insurance companies group all dogs, that's a business decision they've made....start your own insurance company for non-pit owners...clearly it will be a highly marketable commodity and you'll make billions from those that don't want to assume risk for the owners of eeeevvil dogs. While your at it, call Rome and see if you can get them to throw in an exorcism.
Thanks for the interrogation. I may have answered your questions, but in doing so, have learned all I really need to know about you.
Knickers, what century are you living in? I posted my occupation as a counterpoint to your insane rantings about the type of people who own Pit Bulls. Stop projecting. Don't you read your own posts? Maybe you could get your secretary to explain it to you in simple terms you might be able to comprehend. Better yet, you might want to ask him/her to post for you.
Puh-LEEEEZE. Stop with the insults. So not only am I such a wimpy sheep that the ONLY reason I'm afraid is because the media said I should be, NOT because of any common sense or personal experience, but the implication is that I should to learn to maintain a Zen-like control over my thoughts, akin to using meditation to lower heart rate so dogs can't sense my fear! What a bunch of crap. Really, it's pretty amusing to see all the contortions folks go through to a) deny or deflect the problem and b) come up with incredibly inane "suggestions" as to how to avoid a lethal "powerdog" attack. Why don't you go visit the mail carrier that sinkspur wrote about, the one who's leg got shredded by a Rottweiler that jumped at her from between two cars, and share your insight with her? I'm sure she'd appreciate it! *sheesh*
You choose to carry a .45. That's rather large, don't you think? Wouldn't a .38 do the trick? Hopefully that comment won't go over your head.
Well said. Bravo. When "powerdog" defenders start accepting this, then we're on our way to a better solution to a genuine problem than breed-banning and intrusive nannyism.
It doesn't leave a mark. I have always run my own businesses. I find this poster's comments quite amusing.
So do I. I think the guy's a hoot and is playing you like a swordfish!
Nope. I have a problem with large dogs that have a reputation for brutality. Labs, Goldens, Collies, do not have that reputation, though individual dogs of those breeds can be trained to be vicious.
I sat and watched as a Chow and Lab, off leash in my neighbor's yard, saw a cat. The Chow made a beeline for the cat, while the Lab just watched. Thankfully the cat (mine) made it up a tree, or it would have been killed.
I don't like unpredictable animals, and too many of these "power dogs" (as Finny calls them) just explode in violence, surprising the hell out of the owner.
The reason I carry a .45 is that one shot will stop a lunging dog or human being. One shot from a .38 might not.
"Big difference between risky and irresponsible."
Astounding!!!
Astounding!!!
You fail to see the difference? Any businessman takes risks. When you light your barbecue pit, you take risks. When you get in the car to drive your family to church you take risks. There are responsible measured risks and there are irresponsible, cast fate to the winds, mindless risks. Again, your willingness to yield freedom for security (i.e., the absence of risk) is amazing.
Then again, maybe Just Deserts has a problem with all people who are leery of "powerdogs."
"Once wolves catch up to a moose, they start to attack it from the sides and hindquarters. Sometimes, one wolf will attempt to bite onto the muzzle of a moose while the rest of the pack attacks the animal's hindquarters and the sides of its body"
link
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.