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.
From the article:
"New York state allows them a free bite for some reason," DeVarennes said. "I think they should have killed the dog."
"DeVarennes said owners of pit bulls should be required to cage the dogs and obtain at least $50,000 of insurance in case of incidents such as this."
Bears repeating!
fyi- it is 'spay' not 'spade'
"Liability"-- that's a legal ruling-- nobody can say for sure but the jury. "Responsiblity" is the term that is most relevant in this discussion.
Sorta like that pesky human XX or XY chromosome, no matter how a person changes their exterior persona, they are what they are.
right-- thanks
Why not euthanize the Pits as humanely as possible and lethally inject the owners? (Probably be good, also, to be sure that they don't have any DNA frozen somewhere. If so, it should be thawed and poured down the toilet.)
'but if an SUV is handled irresponsibly, it could cause more damage than another type of vehicle.'
'but if a semi-automatic rifle is handled irresponsibly, it could cause more damage than another type of weapon.'
'but if a 10 lb. sledge hammer is handled irresponsibly it could cause more damage that a tack hammer.' ....etc.
I think drunk driving is a better analogy.
Instead of taking a cab, you consciously decide to get behind the wheel drunk, knowing you are many times more likely to kill someone. You may make it home OK.
Instead of buying a less BadAss dog you buy a Pit, consciously knowing it is many times more likely to maul or kill someone. Your neighbors, family, and neighborhood dogs may make it OK.
It's your rejoinder that's ridiculous...Of course I'm well aware that pits have a mind that inanimate objects (and possibly you) lack. My point is that pits are property, mind or no mind, and the owner's responsibilities for the safekeeping of their property is implicitly theirs. An AR-15 has no mind of it's own. If I leave it unattended on my front porch in a busy neighborhood, I'm negligent, and as per my argument, it's potential to create havoc is far greater than a bolt action or single shot rifle. 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.
Any animal, pet, wild or otherwise can be said to have a mind of their own, and therefore, by your argument its a matter of degree as to what we ban. Kill all the pits. Some other breed will move to the top of the list. Ban them. Another breed will take it's place. Eventually will all be sitting in front of the fireplace with our pet box turtles curled up at our feet, at least until another person like you who knows what's best for everyone else realizes that their skin may be a vector for human pathogens, and that since turtles have minds of their own, we need to eliminate them too. In retrospect; however, this too is an absurd scenario, since your kindred will probably have long since banned fireplaces because of the hazards they pose to people as well.
"Walker [owner of the Bichon] said she was glad Blitz was going to be removed from the area and not put to death."
"If he wanted to talk to her, he should have called her lawyer," DeVarennes said.
Walker said she was unaware of any attempt by Ward to contact her and had previously been upset he had not made an effort to speak to her about the incident.
"I didn't know he had tried to contact me," Walker said. "He probably did. There are so many things that have been going on. If Mr. Ward did want to talk to me, I'd be very glad to talk to him concerning the matter.""
Silly strawman...If a gun existed that could jump a fence on it's own and kill 15 people in one year it would be banned quickly.
Any dog can attack - especially another dog. If you train dogs, know dogs, live with dogs you should know THAT basic fact.
Unfortunately hysteria and hyperbole are immune to logic
The Pomeranian's owner described the incident as an unfortunate episode that she wanted to put behind her. She was cited with failure to prevent a dog bite, owning a dog running at large, not possessing a dog license and not having updated rabies shots. Each citation comes with a $25 fine, Fragassi said."
However, your comparison of the dogs to SUVs, sledge hammers, and semi-automatics is what's spurious. Not very long ago, I was walking down a public street minding my own business and was this close to being torn to shreds by a Rottweiler and pit bull. Unlike your average SUV, sledge hammer, and semi-auto, these creatures had eyes that could see me, noses that could smell me (and my fear!), and legs that could swiftly and deliberately deliver their teeth into my flesh. Really, stop it already with the comparison of these dogs to inanimate objects.
The REAL problem here is comparable to Muslims who refuse to loudly and actively condemn Islamic terrorists. "Power dog" advocates (for lack of better term for dogs like Rotts, pit-bull mixes, and such dogs as have track records of human death and serious maiming) have a responsibility to ACCEPT that there is a problem that is with the particular dog breeds, not just the owners. Also, "pets-are-people-too" types need to face up to the reality that pets are NOT people, they do not have the same rights as people, and no sensible society demands that we put them on the same level as people. I think that last item is more at the root of this problem than anything else.
I'm a freedom fan and advocate just like you. One of those freedoms I cherish is the ability to walk down a public street without having my life literally endangered by certain breeds of "power" dogs. I think the best solution is for me to be able to carry an UNCONCEALED firearm, brandish it at the first sight of a dog loose on public property, and shoot the critter if I feel threatened. But that's not going to happen. The only realistic way to SOLVE THIS PROBLEM without nanny-staters getting involved is for breeders and owners of dog breeds that have a track record of endangering lives, to get involved. A good first step would be for them to acknowledge that a problem exists. That hasn't happened. They all come up with false and useless platitudes, like, "There are no dogs, just bad owners," and "Be prudent with regard to dogs you don't know."
Same logic used in the clinton assault weapons ban. Some guns are inherently evil and do evil things just like pit bulls, so we need to ban them and restrict their possession by people who've owned them their entire lives and who have safeguarded them so as that they have never caused so much as a scratch to another human being.
Dad often said that the dogs were what made the difference between profit and loss on the ranch because of the cattle they helped him bring to market that, without the dogs' invaluable assistance, would have gone unfound and unsold. These dogs were incredibly smart, well-trained, good companions, faithful workmates, respected, well-regarded, and treasured. They had dignity and were treated very well and with dignity. The bond between working dog and owner was special and long-lived indeed.
Every once in awhile, though, a dog raised and trained the same way as all the others, would be incorrigible and deliberately disobedient. He'd be sneaky, chase and kill chickens and calfs, and not follow the cowboy's commands. Such dogs were a liability to the ranch and the cowboy. On those occasions, the cowboy would grimly, quietly, sadly take the dog to an out-of-the-way place, shoot it, and bury it. It was the right thing to do. This comes as a shock to people who think of dogs as pets, and especially to those who think of dogs as "like people." They are not, never have been, and never will be, and societies that pretend otherwise end up with "pets" that maim and kill people.
There are no bad dogs. Only bad owners.
Say it all you want, but it's a dangerous platitude, and like most platitudes, sounds nice but is false. It's a sentiment for little girls.
Dishonest comparison...A human has to fire a weapon. A Pit Bull triggers itself. Awaiting a constructive solution from the blood sport dog fanciers....
Denying the problem and pointing to isolated Pomeranian nips don't cut it.
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.