Posted on 07/03/2006 7:10:02 PM PDT by GVnana
My sweet little cocker spaniel dog was nearly killed by two pitbulls who jumped a fence to get to her. She crossed a nearby driveway and they got her.
By the time my neighbors got the dogs off, (within seconds) the pits had grounded my dog, tore out her left eye, dislocated her left leg, and left ten gaping wounds in her body. She couldn't move or even howl in pain. That's how I found her.
My dog weighs 40 pounds. She's large for her breed. She's AKC registered and pedigreed. She was a very beautiful dog.
This happened 10 days ago and I'm still stunned at the viciousness of the attack. I don't know if a human child would have survived what those animals did.
I have since learned that homeowner's insurance will not cover pitbulls.
I'm posting this as a warning and also as an invitation to comment.
I don't follow your argument. And how about cooling it with the putdowns. Do you have a rationale, or insults?
Here is the rationale, step by step.
I assert that it is not appropriate to put down the species for the act of one or two. Dogs fight, it is in their nature. Some fight better or worse than others because of human manipulation of nature.
Then there is the aspect of human training. It is natural for dogs that don't fight well to act cautiously, and run away. Some dogs depend on their human companion to protect them, and after a certain amount of that will develop an aggressive attitude that does not match well with its actual capability. If that happens it is not appropriate to blame either the big dog, or the little dog, but rather, blame the humans who have raised dysfunctional dogs, and then released them into an environment where the dysfunction has bad results. If you have dysfunctional pets (and I have two HIGHLY dysfunctional cats) then you have to be responsible, and keep them inside the house.
One who suggests putting down all of a type of dog because other dogs of that type have been violent are applying a rule that they would never apply to the most dangerous species, which is the human animal, or even to other dangerous species such as lions, cape buffalo, leopards or tigers. We don't allow tigers in our living rooms, but we also don't release our children to roam freely in the den of the tiger. If we did, and bad results occured, it wouldn't be the tiger's fault!
Now, the question is, should we rearrange our streets, using all the oppressive power of Government so that the streets are safe for pretty little dogs who have no caution, because some people don't want to shoulder the irksome responsibility of protecting their dysfunctional pets from sad results that may occur? Should we rearrange our laws and use all the oppressive power of Government so that the streets are safe for pretty little people who don't want have the irksome responsiblity of defending themselves? Of course not.
There is a difference between Case 1 and Case 2:
Case 1. You hold your neighbor responsible (using courts as necessary)for damages to your dog caused when his dogs went into your fenced backyard, and hurt your dog.
Case 2. You seek to hold your neighbor responsible (using courts as necessary) for damages to your dog that occured on your neighbor's yard, or in the commons.
In the commons, or on your neighbor's property, it is your responsibility to keep your dog away from dangerous situations.
Does that help?
Having said that, I am sorry that the pretty little dog was hurt. My first wife and I had two little dogs (one after the other). In each case I ended up with the job of holding the dogs when they were put down, one after it had a neck cancer, the other after it developed a permanent seizure. I had another two small dogs with my second wife.
Putting an animal companion down is one of the toughest things to do, but I always felt that I owed it to the animal to be there, if it helped it feel a bit more comfortable.
Even though I'm a physician, not a veterinarian, I will use my surgical skills to spay or neuter any and all pit bulls free of charge.
Interesting study, but it leaves out the denominator.
How many dogs of a given species are out there? With 300 total attacks, if there are a million dogs out there, the people who are attacked probably have other traits that much more preferentially select them for attacks than the mere presence of a particular variety of dog.
Rather like the argument against the death penalty: We interview 300 people on death row, and none of them were deterred by the death penalty.
You have to look both at the number of events, and the number of exposures to calculate a rate.
I work as a reliability engineer, and bad stats or misleading partial stats are a bugaboo of mine.
Even though I am an engineer, and not a physician, I will use all my statistical skills to defend pit bulls unjustly attacked, free of charge.
I also spay and neuter physicians and lawyers for cost!
Don't you have a local newspaper/local TV station? Get publicity about this, if only to save someone else's dog, or worse yet, a child!
Like walking down the street? I disagree with you on this.
The following link has some interesting legal views of "provocation", and I do understand it is general, and not breed specific:
http://www.dogbitelaw.com/PAGES/whybite.html
Here is something from a Pro-Pit Bull website, that does properly try to inform owners that this is an agressive breed.
It is a FACT that our pit bulls, AmStaffs and pit mixes come with a built-in fighting heritage. It doesnt matter where we get them from, whether it be the pound, a stray we pick up, or a puppy we buy from a breeder. The majority of pit bulls will, at some point in their lives, exhibit some degree of dog-on-dog aggression. This type of animal aggression is completely separate from human-aggression; a well-socialized pit bull is very good-natured with people. Yet, chances are that a "normal" pit bull will not share his affection with other animals. We cannot predict when or where it will happen and we cant love, train or socialize it out of the dog. Pit bulls may not start a fight, but they will finish it.
The bold is from the original text at the website.
Here's the definition:
"A breaking stick is a device made to be inserted in the mouth of a Pit Bull (behind the molars) to gently pry its jaws open and release its grip on another animal or object."
More from:
(my bold)
WHY EVERY RESPONSIBLE PIT BULL OWNER NEEDS A BREAKING STICK
"Because Pit Bull dogs have been bred for specific fighting abilities and can cause serious injuries to other dogs if a fight is not broken quickly and efficiently. Keep in mind that most dogs fight differently than Pit Bull dogs. Pit Bull's inherent reaction in the heat of a fight is the one of a Terrier with a prey. They will work to get some sort of grip in a desired place, and then will hold and shake. This is quite different than most other types of dogs who do a lot of random biting, growling and barking but will most likely quit when their opponent shows signs of submission. In many cases, a non-Pit Bull fight will be a lot of noise and snapping jaws, usually resulting in little damage. Since a Pit Bull will firmly grip and hold its victim, breaking sticks have been designed to break their grip. This is the safest, easiest, and most effective way to stop a Pit Bull fight. No responsible owner should be without one."
They "released them" ... hmmm ... The dogs release themselves half the time. They're in charge, not the owner. It's part of the "dysfunctional" thing.
We have a choice to make in the way that best preserves personal freedom.
To nail the bastards that bring these dogs to the table, there would have to be serious teeth. There would be no other way. People who raise "dysfuncional pets" are the majority, so it would be easy to figure a general demographic's percentage of dysfunctional dog breeds that have the track record and ability to heavily maim or kill human beings.
There are lots of dysfunctional dogs. Some of them bite. Others crap where people step. They are pains in the ass, but I can tolerate quite a bit of that because I know what they mean to the people who own them. But few dysfunctional dogs have the demonstrated will and physical power to kill human beings.
People who have "dysfunctional pets" are part of human nature and will be with us always. Regulating the owner of a nasty chihuahua with the same "blind justice" as you regulate the owner of two pitbull dogs would require an extreme invasion of government.
The longer we pretend that the owner of an errant chihuahua or a spaniel is as deeply reprehensible as the owner of an errant dog with the demonstrated capability and will to attack and kill humans, the louder there will be cries for breed banning, and the more reasonable those cries will be.
Otherwise responsible pit bull afficionados appear are too whimpery go out and engage in some head-on peer-pressure harshness on the dickheads who mortally endanger average neighborhoods with stupid "pet" choices. Instead, they whine about how terrifyingly freedom threatening it would be for the government to come down hard on what choice they damned well want to make in the pet department.
They are the ones who could make government intervention never happen ... but they won't even cop to the fact that their "pets" are in a whole different class with regard to danger. So this is not an auspicious beginning.
I don't like the idea of banning dog breeds, but .... Dammit!!! A lady should be able to unload the groceries out of her car without finding herself cornered by two snarling pit bulls in her own kitchen.
I need more BBQ. Take care.
re: it will force them to contact their homeowners insurance agent.--good point. They'll go down on permanent record as a dangerous nuisance, even if you can't get satisfaction otherwise.
Exactly... I wish I'd said that!
How does one go about finding out which homeowner's insurance someone carries?
After breaking up a few fights using other methods
we now have two of these implements in the house.
As of yet we have not had to use them.
An analysis of what circumstances led to the fights
and seeing that those conditions do not reoccur has solved the problem over the last year.
Have you done anything yet about the problem down the steet?
Hypothetical question. Answer it if you feel inclined.
A free roaming dog comes into your yard.
Your bichons, without leaving your property, attack the roaming dog.
Who is responsible for the vet bills?
Who is responsible for the vet bills?
If my dogs jumped a 7 ft. fence, and tore out an eye and inflicted multiple lacerations, I would offer to pay.
Pits are a different breed of dog.
But, then, you know that, Mr. Pit Bull himself. And you know that Bichon Frises would not inflict such injuries.
They are not bred to do that.
LOL...Well...Mr. walk your dogs off-leash in the neighborhood Bichon...
I didn't mention a fence nor a degree of injury.
What I take from your answer is that
you would not pay for the vet bills under the circumstances I described
that you believe no jury would find you responsible.
Mary, thanks for the 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.