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.
They bred them to do that....Just as the Pit Farms are developing 120lb Pit Bulls with the UKC's blessing. Most breeds have strict standards enforced by the registering organizations but money talks with the Pit crowd. I don't hate the dogs, they were a tool developed for a cruel and criminal purpose. It doesn't mean they should be bred in such numbers and owned by people who can't handle them. The numbers of Pit Bulls dying in the shelters should outrage the fanciers. Instead they fight every regulation like the abortion lobby and come on sites like this one, spread lies and insult victims.
It's interesting that there were no complaints issued in GV's neighborhood until the Pit Bull dirt bags moved in.
..it is no more appropriate to have a pitbull in a residential neighborhood than it is to have a cougar for a pet (BJ)
Good analogy. A cougar is just a cat, like a pittbull is just a dog. (dipsydoodlelady)
A pit bull is not a cougar (fact)
Why would they even bring up the comparison. It is sickening that people so bent on their postion that they have to state the obvious is not obvious. BJ
There is no "we" here,
this is your idea to banishing dangerous dog breeds from residential neighborhoods,
I would like to see what your research indicates.
Tell us what breeds are to be banned, please.
That's really uncalled-for.
And since we're on the topic of cocker spaniel agressiveness (not really) a cocker could not have done what those two pits did to my cocker.
http://moneycentral.msn.com/content/Insurance/Insureyourhome/P35342.asp "Dogs
If you own a toothless Chihuahua, your insurer probably doesn’t care. Buy a pit bull, Rottweiler or wolf hybrid, however, and you may find your insurance gets more expensive -- if you can persuade your insurer to cover you at all.
Dog bites cost insurers about $310 million a year, and an increasing number of companies have a blacklist of breeds they won’t accept or charge more to cover. Pit bulls, which lead the Centers for Disease Control list of deadly breeds, are particularly unwelcome. Other troublesome breeds include German shepherds, Rottweilers, wolf hybrids, huskies, malamutes and Dobermans.
If your dog has ever bitten anyone, regardless of its breed, you’re probably going to have trouble getting coverage as well -- particularly if it was an unprovoked attack.
Each insurer has different policies, though, so you may be able to find affordable coverage if you shop around. You also can ask the insurer to exclude your dog, meaning that you’ll pay for any damage it does.
If you have a dog that bites or lunges at strangers, however, get rid of it. The risks to your pocketbook and your neighbors are too great."
Bold mine.
It would be interesting to see how that $310 million breaks-down.
I wonder how much that amount could be brought down
through education and strict enforcement of existing laws.
I'm curious to see if the breeds mentioned make BJ's proscribed list.
YOu can ignore my answer if you want but it won't change it. The dogs that should be banned are pitbulls. If you want to expand that list, then I suggest you check the list of dogs that insurance companies will not insure against a homeowner's policy.
My position is very clear. Ban pitbulls in residential neighborhoods. Not sure why you are having a hard time understanding that.
I know you are smart enough to discern the difference between a cocker spaniel and a cougar. One is infinitely more dangers.
A pitbull is a dangerous animal.
A cougar is a dangerous animal.
A cocker spaniel is a dangerous animal.
Which of the two sentences above are related? Which sentence does not fit the patter.
Come on now, we are going back to SAT testing here. This is pretty basic stuff.
Tell you what, when you put up a thread that says "My Dog was Savagely Attacked by Two Cocker Spaniels then I will go over there and join you in the discussion. This discussion thread is about pitbulls.
I'm not having a hard time understanding that.
You've stated it over and over and over again.
In addition you've stated..."Should dangerous dogs be allowed in residential neighborhoods? The answer is no. The law only need to defined a dangerour breed and then say they are banned in any areas zoned residential"
Again your position is very clear.
I'm trying to get a complete understanding of your vision.
You say dangerous dogs should not be allowed in neighborhoods.
You say you are not satisfied with the way the Virginia law defines a dangerous dog.
A dangerous dog in your opinion should not be defined by the individual dog's behavior
but rather by its inclusion in a type or breed of dog.
I understand what you are saying.
I've asked given that dangerous dogs should not be allowed in residential neighborhoods,
what dogs would be allowed? ...any dogs but...?
Are there other types or breeds of dogs that qualify as "dangerous" in your opinion?
Or are "pit bulls" the only type of dog that is dangerous?
It would be grossly negligent not to include all dangerous breeds, would it not?
We wouldn't want legislative laziness or shortsightedness to result in a death or severe mauling, right?
To be consistent in argument and comprehensive in approach, all dangerous dogs must be banned.
You pointed to insurance companies to indicate additional dangerous breeds that would not be allowed.
I've asked you what your research shows those breeds to be.
Is my question unclear? Or do you not care to answer it?
PS...This is my last day on this thread.
I'm leaving this weekend for a max of 2 months,
with my gift from God and my canoe for an adventure in God's country.
If I don't leave the thread today,
I'll end up carrying it (and you) around in my head for the first couple of days of my journey.
I'd prefer not to do that. :~)
Things could get messy.
Have a safe trip........... and remember some animals are more dangerous than others.
"A pit bull is not a cougar (fact)"
Agree. A cougar kills to survive. A Pit Bull fights and kills for fun. An anomaly in the animal world.
If you wish to state that a pit bull is potentially more dangerous than a Cocker Spaniel
then I will agree.
If you wish to state that Cocker Spaniels bite more often then "pit bull", then again I will agree.
Bringing wild animals into the discussion is as silly as saying labs are pits.
If I had to choose between being attacked by a pit bull or a cougar,
I would have no problem making the choice
We can't turn a blind-eye (in my dog's case, not just a metaphor) to their potential for loss and harm.
We don't live in a perfect world with perfectly behaved animals, nor perfectly behaved humans. We never will. And for that we base our justice on the greatest good for the greatest number.
Perhaps you live in an urban environment where dogs are kept indoors and never off a tether. In my environment that would be cruel and unnatural, except for the smallest breeds. Perhaps in your environment, people keep such dogs because of the harm they can do. In my environment people keep dogs to bark and guns to shoot. To my mind, that is a safer and more sane arrangement since dogs don't have much discretion.
"If you wish to state that Cocker Spaniels bite more often then "pit bull", then again I will agree"
I guess it depends on how you calculate bites...
If a Pit Bull bites it's victim 30 times before police shoot it, does that count as one bite or thirty?
A good example:
http://www.stoppitbullattacks.com/Album1.htm
BTW the family is taking donations for medical treatment since the Dog owners had no assets nor insurance.
Glad you finally agree, only the word is "infinately" not potentially.
If you wish to state that Cocker Spaniels bite more often then "pit bull", then again I will agree.
You brought up Cocker Spaniels, not me. I was talking about pitbulls.
Bringing wild animals into the discussion is as silly as saying labs are pits.
They were brought into the conversation to correct your suggestion that Cocker Spaniels were some how a worry. I'd stare down and attack if necessary a Cocker Spaniel.
If I had to choose between being attacked by a pit bull or a cougar, I would have no problem making the choice
You stand a better chance with the cougar.
Yikes...sounds more dangerous the manbearpig!
Have a safe trip........... and remember some animals are more dangerous than others.
Shortly after I returned home last year's trip a report came in that a young lady doctor
had been killed by a bear in a remote spot that I had camped at.
Her husband valiantly tried to fight off the bear with a Swiss Army knife.
He was able to retrieve his wife's body but was unable to save her life.
This year I'm going more prepared, long fixed blade knife, bear spray, air horn and bear bangers.
And of course my dog who would stand up to a bear if need be.
A few springs ago, while on a hike in the bush, a bear burst out of the brush
not 12 feet in front of us and tore off down the trail.
Thankfully away from us. I was caught flatfooted but the dog started to run after the bear.
It was with some trepidation that I commanded him to halt and was relieved when he obeyed.
Uh, putting your dog up against a bear is not a healthy idea for your dog.
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.