Pit Bull attacks child at birthday party in Galax

WSLS ^

[Chet 99]

By Ashley Roberts WSLS10 Reporter

Published: May 4, 2009

A four-year-old child is recovering, after Galax Police say a pit bull attacked the child and an adult at a birthday party on Sunday.

Officers say Gregory Hatcher was walking his pit bull on Webster Street, across from the Galax Police Department, when the dog began barking, and police say Webster and some adults at the birthday party “exchanged words.“

Investigators believe the dog then got loose, attacked Tyonda Ravenell and then the child.

EMTs took both the child and Ravenell to Twin County Regional Hospital. EMTs then took the child to Roanoke Memorial Hospital for surgery. Police describe the child as having “severe leg injuries.“ Ravenell has since been treated and released.

Police charged Hatcher with two counts of assault and battery, as well as two counts of allowing an animal to attack.

The Galax Animal Control officer has quarantines the pit bull.

[goat granny]

LOL those darn chipmunks are dangerous. Also too small to eat...glad you were not banned...

[meandog]

Here is a list (wikipedia) of dog fighting breeds click here . Which "one or two" do you propose banning? (Note that even the "vicious" Boston Terrier is even on the list).

If you'll further examine the list by clicking on the breed of dog, please note that there are several; the Bull Terrier for instance, that have had an illustrative history of companionship with humans (Gen. Patton's dog "Willie" was a so-called "pitbull"...one ("Meatball") also starred with Robert Conrad in "Bah-Bah Black Sheep). As well, many have starred in movies and television with children ("Petie," an Amstaff and another "pitbull" was in the "Our Gang" series.)

Incidentally, a Bull Terrier was the winner of the Westchester Kennel Club meet in N.Y. two years ago (BTW, if a dog even growls in a dog show it is eliminated).

[Scythian]

Okay, we’ll go with your suggestion, much better ...

[from occupied ga]

How about the top two on the list here? This site has pretty much up to date stats about the breeds that are most likely to kill people with a couple of winners in the breed category - pit bulls and rotweilers. You should be happy that the site does not advocating banning specific breeds because while it might reduce the number of canine homicides, it won't reduce the overall dog bite problem and goes more to my original solution of doing away with the one free bite rule and enforcing strict financial and criminal liability on dog owners.

[meandog]

It is interesting, isn't it, that one such breed identified as a "killer" was a Pomeranian (see last paragraph of article)?...this is one primary reason why PBTs attack (neglect/abuse):

click here

[from occupied ga]

Pointing our other breeds cause problems does not alter the fact that there is a significantly greater chance that the top two will kill someone. Unless you postulate that pit bull owners and rotweiler owners are significantly more likely to abuse their animals than other dog onwers, then it has to be the breed.

[brytlea]

a Pit bull is the Equivolent of a .50 cal

Don't you hate it when you're own words bite you? ;)

[brytlea]

I agree about the one free bite rule, however there are lots of cockers and other small breeds that will be euthanized under such a law.

[brytlea]

I think it IS likely that pit and rottie owners are more likely (overall) to have a combination of traits that make them unsuitable dog owners, much less owners of big potentially dangerous breeds. The reason a subset of people get those sorts of breeds is that they want an *bad dog*. They want something macho that they can scare people with, etc. They are also not likely to be very educated about proper dog care/socialization (if they even care). You know exactly the sort of person I’m talking about. If we could make it against the law for thugs to own dogs period, that would help the situation a lot. But I don’t think you can do that.

[Explodo]

All I was trying to say is a pit bull is designed to inflict damage...a Poodle...is not.

Both will bite the crap out of you...one bite will Make you madder than a wet jap...and result in a puntable dog. The other results in massive damage and hopefully a trip to the ICU.

But yeah...I hate when my own statements sneak up on me ;)

[brytlea]

LOL
I know you were trying to say. Let me explain why I am against breed specific laws (but not laws that make people 100% responsible for their animals (including cats btw).
There is a movement afoot in the US to completely do away with pets. It is spearheaded by PETA and HSUS (yes, this is not your local humane society or shelter, but a national organization that runs no shelters but is instead a lobbying group for animal RIGHTS).
In the past the president (and founder) of PETA has said their goal is no pets—spay and neuter all pets and when all shelter pets are gone, that’s it. Of course, they are also against any use of animals for any reason including food.
At any rate, they are being phenomenally successful with legislation around the country restricting people’s ability to breed dogs. In my own county I must now pay a 75$ fee (per year) per unspayed or unneutered dog in addition to a $150 (per year) hobby breeder license (whether I have a litter that year or not). I am further required to agree that they can come into my home as they wish to inspect me. Simply because I show my dogs and breed the occassional litter.
Breed bans sound innocuous, but they are pushed by the same sorts of groups. Of course it also goes along with the liberal idea that people are not responsible creatures and cannot be, so you must legislate every aspect of their lives.

[Moltke]

To your post #22:

You sound like a responsible owner of pit bulls.

But: If one of your dogs ever happens to hurt someone, whatever the circumstances, your screen-name “meandog” could/will back-fire big time (I admit I wonder myself...). And don’t even hope the plaintiff’s lawyers won’t find this out. They’ll make it sound like INTENT to any jury out there...good luck.

That’s why “Burke” in the Andrew Vachss novels named his Napolitan Mastiff “Pansy”. ;-)

[stinkerpot65]

I did, repeatedly.

[dmz]

LOL.

Before or after you adjusted the thing?

[meandog]

Pointing our other breeds cause problems does not alter the fact that there is a significantly greater chance that the top two will kill someone. Unless you postulate that pit bull owners and rotweiler owners are significantly more likely to abuse their animals than other dog onwers, then it has to be the breed.

APBTs came in vogue in the 1960s and 70s as a popular breed of dog. No one had much heard of them before that time. Unfortunately, this was also the time that the drug craze also hit and those drugs were soon the golden egg for criminal groups and street gangs.
Many of these thugs wanted tough dogs to guard their property, many also like the fact that the dogs will fight when provoked, etc.; and they became popular.

But most of today's "pitbulls" are not the dog that I knew but an amalgamation, created by backyard breeding and selection for aggressiveness. These dogs are then sold to anybody, regardless of ability, and often get neglected and abused--even encouraged to be aggressive and mean.

Among responsible owners, however, Amstaffs, Bull Terriers, Staffs, AmBulldogs, etc., are prized, loved, trained and socialized--mainly because of the show ring and, if they win, for throwing offspring. Pet stock dogs are neutered and spayed.

When I had APBTs I walked them muzzled; not because I didn't trust them but because of the reputation they received. I kept them penned when outside and put them away when guests were over. I also worked constantly with training. I never had a problem.

I feel the same way about Rotties. They are great dogs, but many have been made bad by bad people.

In short, there is not a breed of dog that I don't like (although the Portugese Water Dog is getting some scrutiny because of a certain owner). To me, every breed of dog is like going to the Miss America Pageant knowing that you can have your pick of any of the contestants to take home!

[aMorePerfectUnion]

FR is being overwhelmed by Romney, Mormon and Pit Bull threads... hmmmmmmm

[1COUNTER-MORTER-68]

TANKS a bunch for the threads,Chet,,,

Quiet here...

[from occupied ga]

but an amalgamation, created by backyard breeding and selection for aggressiveness

Well it would seem that you agree with me that the breed IS more of a problem than others. And, since you say it was just recently created/changed (something I did not know) it would not be much of a loss to ban it. Much as I despise government interference in our lives I believe that there is a legitimate role for government, and that role being to protect our rights and property (unlike most Democrats and Republicans who believe that the role of government is to seize our property for its own use and abrogate our rights).

As Will Rogers said, "Your right to swing your fist ends at my nose." Or, to put it another way, your right to own the dog of your choice ends when there is a significantly greater chance that a specific breed of dog will commit a crime against my property or my person.

also like the fact that the dogs will fight when provoked,

Or rip a childs face off when not "provoked." In many case "provoking" the dog seems to consist of being in the vicinity and being seen by the dog.

To me, every breed of dog is like going to the Miss America Pageant knowing that you can have your pick of any of the contestants to take home!

Interesting viewpoint, but, as you acknowledge, in reality not all breeds are equal when it comes to the risk they represent to others, which brings me back to the paragraph about government existing to protect rights and property.

[Royal Wulff]

“the dog then got loose” == “the dog was sicced on the child”

[from occupied ga]

I think it IS likely that pit and rottie owners are more likely (overall) to have a combination of traits that make them unsuitable dog owners, much less owners of big potentially dangerous breeds

You might think that, but your hypothesis completely fails on two points.

1. Complete lack of real evidence - Anectodal evidence is NEVER considered scientifically adequate upon which to base a hypothesis since for every anectode you can get that supports your side one can find an anectode that supports the other side and
2. It fails the test of Occam's razor - The principle of Occams razor has been stated many ways, from " the simplest explanation is the most likely" to the form as stated by Ernst Mach which he called the Principle of Economy, stated that "Scientists must use the simplest means of arriving at their results and exclude everything not perceived by the senses." Your theory that the dogs are owned by bad owners violates this principle in that you must postulate another layer of unsupported explanation that goes beyond the simplest explanation. Simplest and most likely to be correct is that the dogs themselves are more agressive and vicious than other breeds. This is directly supported by statistically significant evidence as opposed to unscientific anectodes