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.
Then the world will be safe at last, and we will all be able to sleep at night unless our neighbor smokes cigarettes, owns guns, drives an SUV, celebrates the Fourth of July with fireworks, or serves oysters during months without an "r" in them.
But I'm sure our legislative overlords can soon put an end to all that business too.
I couldn't let a sensible statement from you go unacknowledged.
I thought that too. Then we received a 5 mo. old Dobie pup who was fully aggressive. . .AT 5 MONTHS.
That dog went back to the breeder toute suite for a more docile animal.
At that point I knew that some dogs are born excessively alert and overly protective.
We later learned that the dog had been bought by a retired Federal judge. He had renamed the animal 'Deacon' because "people got religion when they met him'.
A drunk driver getting into his car is both risky and irresponsible. I don't see much difference.
I understand you are sensitive about your shepherds. As far as I know there haven't been twenty or so Shepherds shot by law enforcement just this month alone. The Pit behavior is way out of line.
I suggest a little research and less reflexive circular debate. A google search of "Pit Bull shot" will show the indefensible behavior.
I was bit by a shepherd as a kid and the dog looked guilty afterward and ran. Just a little 4 stitch nip on the hand. The cops didn't have to shoot him to make it stop. I know they've killed a few, but they aren't in the same stratosphere as these beserkers.
I put that one in the "Blind Pig-Acorn" file.
Safety is Freedom, Comrade.
There are responsible measured risks and there are irresponsible, cast fate to the winds, mindless risks.
The "mindless risk" is the clown up the street (true story) who occasionally has a poorly chained pit bull who always snarls, barks, and tracks folks on the street below checking their mail, as we all have mailboxes in one spot. Good thing the dog is on a chain because it could easily slip through the joke of a fence and kill somebody. Who's taking the mindless risk? Those of us who go there to check our mail? The big difference is that in the risk the dog's owner is taking, he may have to foot the finances after a long and expensive court fight, but other people are forced to take physical risks which may range from permanent disfigurement to death.
Understand: the risk is posed by one stupid, selfish person who does so by choice; the risks of severe physical injury or death are involuntarily borne by an entirely different person who bears no responsibility whatsoever but who has every right to be able to walk down the street and check his or her mailbox in security. Risk comparison with regard to business decisions, lighting a barbecue, or driving to church is mighty weak.
Again, your willingness to yield freedom for security (i.e., the absence of risk) is amazing.
For you to lecture that our objecting to morons who insist on having dog types with long, long rap sheets of maiming and killing innocent people and putting at risk innocent bystanders as "a willingness to yield freedom for security," is perpelexing. As neatly as your logic seems to indicate, indeed ownership comparison (SUV, firearm) doesn't work because the irresponsible owner of the gun or SUV really has to DO something extreme, or SOMEONE has to do something extreme, in order for the negligence to result in loss of life. In the case of the irresponsible owner of a vicious powerdog, it doesn't take much for the whole thing to snowball into tragedy for someone innocent. In order to PREVENT stupidly yielding freedom for security, this problem with moron dog owners has to be acknowleded, not accepted as the price of "freedom." It is a matter of making a hard call that involves one kind of freedom (the guy's right to own a dog) over another freedom (my right to walk down public streets without fear of being attacked by vicious lethal dogs). Hard calls are so unpleasant -- easier to just ignore it and pretend it's all the same, a matter of "freedom versus security," and freedom wins everytime. Do that, and we'll end up with the lousy prospect of breeds being banned because this is a real problem that won't go away just because we think it doesn't exist. The first step on the road to a better solution is to make some hard calls. I don't know what they are, but they have to be made. I like the idea of guaranteed hard jail time for ANYONE who has these powerdogs, and they should be on a list (another distasteful hard call that no one wants to make), and that dog is loose in public. Period. No ifs, ands, or buts. Jail time, not just fines. That would be a start. People can own any kind of dog they want -- but when they choose certain dogs, certain territory goes with that choice that makes the owner, not the neighbors, bear the bigger burden.
The difference is, your not advocating against the car. Treat the irresponsible, negligent our outright antagonistic pitbull owner like you would the drunk driver and we're in agreement. If the car is not roadworthy and poses a threat in it's own right, we still hold the owner responsible for keeping it out of public venues until and unless it's rendered safe. Why you don't have the same expectation and accountability for the dog owner is beyond me.
"...but they aren't in the same stratosphere as these beserkers."
If you were referring to the irresponsible owners, I would agree completely. The fact of the matter is, a large number of pit and bull terrier variant owners keep and maintain their animals responsibly; and I would suspect do so in far greater numbers than the highly visible, headline grabbing, irresponsible ilk. PETA and other animal right whacko groups see this as their best hope to ultimately ban any and all animal ownership, and the overwhelming success they are having in some communities in banning such a poorly defined breed does not bode well for any of us who enjoy our property rights.
This thinking indicates serious denial while indulging in serious superiority complexes. You're pretending that this is one issue, when it's something else altogehter, and you're shooting yourself in the foot. You prefer to see this as a noble battle about freedom, when it's really about having the balls make hard calls about stupid people making stupid choices that endanger innocent people, and that is the key.
Keep denying the true nature of the problem and delude yourselves, then you pretty much guarantee that the thing you and I hate, breed banning and "overlord" crap, will happen because whether you like it or not ... something has to be done. Like one guy said here, regular folks are only going to put up with this crap from these dogs for so long before they go over the edge and overreact with calls for drastic legislation. Your steadfast refusal to acknowledge the legitimacy of their complaints is you digging your own hole and making it MORE likely that stupid, drastic legislation will result. Open your eyes and think with your heads. Don't be hotheads. Be cool.
You prefer to see this as a noble battle about freedom, when it's really about having the balls to make hard calls about stupid people making stupid choices that endanger innocent people, and that is the key.
And when they maul someone, they always say their pit bull was friendly, never was aggressive before, etc. Or that the kid was at fault because it violated the pit bulls' territory, behaved in an aggressive manner toward the pit bull, should have known better, kid's parents should have known better, etc.
And my point is that your point that these pits are property is completely overshadowed and invalidated by the fact that other weapons do not let themselves out of the safe, wiggle out of their gun locks, jump over the fence, and maul little children to death. But instinct-driven, independently thinking, hungry, aggressive animals do. If you don't believe me then jump into the lion or tiger exhibit at the zoo and see for yourself (oh wait, that can't happen, those animals are property of someone and are "properly shackled").
Granted the assault rifle will not get up on its own and attack people, but nor will a pit bull that is properly caged, kenneled, leashed, muzzled etc. by a responsible owner
So that accounts for probably 1 in 10 of these vicious animals. Owners that are irresponsible enough to own this vicious breed to begin with are hardly likely to be responsible enough to keep them "caged, kenneled, leashed or muzzled". I've seen them running wild through the streets in our big city, and in groups of two or more-- clearly a public menace. The worst their owners will get for such an offense is a slap on the wrist compared to the likely fatal consequences for the unfortunate child or old person that happens to cross paths with them.
As for banning, most people, you being the exception, agree that these vicious breeds should be kept away from young children as much as possible. And in heavily populated neighborhoods that means an outright ban is absolutely, unequivocably appropriate.
Nobody here is saying there is not a problem
Nobody is minimizing the seriousness of dog attacks.
Nobody is lecturing you to accept the risks of the moron down the street.
Please do not repeat these accusations.
The issue is what solution we can arrive at to minimize the risk.
I gave my opinion earlier of what could be done
Containment is essential regardless of breed.
There are or should be laws on the books now
that if rigorously enforced would go a long way towards solving this.
We could look and see if the penalties should be increased.
If you are looking for total safety I have no answer for you.
And btw the way I reject your use of term 'powerdogs'.
It is an unwarranted characterization of how responsible owners see their dogs.
It may be the way irresponsible owners and dog-fighters refer to their dogs,
but smacks too closely of a animal-rights attempt at creating a definition in order to besmirch all owners.
[sound of world's smallest violin playing]
'Troubled pit bull' seems redundant.
Drunk driving is very similar to Pit Bull ownership in terms of risk being raised by several orders of magnitude.
As far as Peta goes, you're barking up the wrong tree. Americans love fishing, hunting and their dogs too much for them to get a foothold. They are scoffed at as extremists.
Best thing you could do is distance your breed from the pit bulls. Their denial of unacceptable conduct and risk has you defending the indefensible. A real sinking ship!
Did you look at the police shootings? I only saw one shooting for shepherds, a family shot theirs when they couldn't afford to feed it anymore. Media conspiracy against the Pits no doubt...bail out!!1
"Have a nice day, moron." -- Joe Six-Pack to LK44-40
I think you're attributing to Just Deserts something that I said, and which I stand by: Joe SP was eloquent in outlining why it's a bad idea to ban the dogs.
Wow, you're right! Toy poodle attacks are much more dramatic! After an exhaustive search I found a story of two vicious toy poodles attacking a bull--
What Happens When Toy Poodles Attack a Bull
Status: Real
This series of images of two toy poodles attacking a bull are a couple of months old (though they're new to me). They recall those images of a mule attacking a mountain lion. Despite looking rather surreal (especially that one of the dog suspended in air above the bull), not to mention bizarre (what were the dogs thinking?), they are real. This scene occurred in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, outside of New Orleans, when the two toy poodles, crazed with hunger, decided that a bull would make a great dinner. They would have succeeded had it not been for intervention from the National Guard. A reporter for the Sunday Telegraph witnessed the scene:
Like a wrestling tag team, the bitch and the dog attacked with awesome ferocity, leaping at the bull's head and latching on to its muzzle. The stricken bull repeatedly shook the dogs off, flinging them up to 15 feet in the air. But they took turns to keep up the attack, exhausting the bull which was by now smeared with blood. Even after the bull trampled the bitch, leaving it dazed, the toy poodle bitch stepped up its attack... It was too dangerous for an unarmed witness to intervene but The Sunday Telegraph flagged down a National Guard truck. Seeing what was happening, a soldier shot the bitch in the head. The dog paused before resuming the attack. It took sixty-two bullets and three hand grenades to stop it dead.
You know, Joe, I think you've got something there. Over the past decade drunk driving has been uber-demonized and measures attempting to prevent it have been so overwhelmingly enforced that it's made a serious dent in the problem. Jail time for folks who let their dangerous deadly dogs roam free whether or not the dogs attack. But again ... it would really have to be breed and breed/mix specific to be honest. Start putting spaniel owners in jail because their sweet little muttlies wander next door to say Hi to the neighbor, and the law becomes rightly ludicrous. But doggy profiling -- how horribly politically incorrect!!!
Kanawa just said it. Keep your frikkin dogs contained. Any governing body that is serious about these issues will demonstrate it by levying serious penalties on offenders of restraint ordinances.
I don't see what the big problem is. Other than money and time. Enforcement of the law will be the biggest preventative measure.
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.