Posted on 09/20/2008 8:52:04 PM PDT by familyop
It was a tragic scene in North Las Vegas involving a baby and two dogs. A four-month-old was attacked by two Pit Bulls. The dogs were attacking so viciously police say they had to shoot them dead upon arriving at the scene.
Residents in the neighborhood near Cheyenne and Martin Luther King say they are shocked but not surprised that it happened. Neighbors tell News 3 the two Pit Bulls were full grown dogs and when the baby girl arrived at the house four months ago they began to display aggressive behavior towards the child and anyone who held her.
"We knew that someone had shot somebody," a neighbor named Gloria told News 3.
The shots that Gloria and her neighbors heard was North Las Vegas police shooting the two dogs still on the attack.
"I look in. You could see the dogs laying dead," another neighbor, Jason Howell said. The shots prompted Howell to run to his neighbor's house to see if he could help. He says that what he saw will haunt him. "There are some peculiars I don't even want to discuss," said Howell.
Howell says other neighbors have commented on the dogs' aggressive behavior. "You don't have Pit Bulls around children, period," Howell said.
Also according to neighbors, the child's grandmother was at the home babysitting when the attack happened.
Neither police nor neighbors know what sparked the attack. "You have an aggressive breed dog, a Pit Bull and a child in the house. They ripped it to shreds," Howell said. What could the child possibly have done to instigate that? I have a daughter who is 18 months old. And the look on the father's face is something I'll never forget, ever. That's all I have to say."
The grandmother who was in the house sustained injuries. She was taken away by ambulance.
It was just a couple of months ago that a local animal control officer was attacked by three pit bulls. In July the officer responded to a home in North Las Vegas.
According to reports the dogs were loose in a neighbors yard near Centennial and Lamb. The officer managed to get away from the dogs and locked herself in her vehicle.
In April two 5-year-old boys were attacked by two Pit Bulls outside a home near Vegas Valley and McLeod. One was bitten in the face, the other in the leg. Both dogs were put to euthanized..
That’s, even...
Some folks can’t stand the truth...
Me....."Sorry, when both the numerator and the demoninator are in question your statement reflects only your personal opinion. "
You....All who are very interested know about the 20-year-study by the Centers For Disease Control, but the other studies show the same.
Yes indeed let us read that report as I have done many times.
Let us look at the conclusion of the study....
Conclusions—Although fatal attacks on humans appear to be a breed-specific problem (pit bull-type dogs and Rottweilers), other breeds may bite and cause fatalities at higher rates. Because of difficulties inherent in determining a dog’s breed with certainty, enforcement of breed-specific ordinances raises constitutional and practical issues. Fatal attacks represent a small proportion of dog bite injuries to humans and, therefore, should not be the primary factor driving public policy concerning dangerous dogs. Many practical alternatives to breed-specific ordinances exist and hold promise for prevention of dog bitesAnd let us look at the discussion...
Discussion Ideally, breed-specific bite rates would be calculated to compare breeds and quantify the relative dangerousness of each breed. For example, 10 fatal attacks by Breed X relative to a population of 10,000 X’s (1/1,000) implies a greater risk than 100 attacks by Breed Y relative to a population of 1,000,000 Y’s (0.1/1,000). Without consideration of the population sizes, Breed Y would be perceived to be the more dangerous breed on the basis of the number of fatalities.And from the AVMA report A community approach to dog bite prevention
Considering only bites that resulted in fatalities, because they are more easily ascertained than nonfatal bites, the numerator of a dog breed-specific human DBRF rate requires a complete accounting of human DBRF as well as an accurate determination of the breeds involved. Numerator data may be biased for 4 reasons. First, the human DBRF reported here are likely underestimated; prior work suggests the approach we used identifies only 74% of actual cases.1,2 Second, to the extent that attacks by 1 breed are more newsworthy than those by other breeds, our methods may have resulted in differential ascertainment of fatalities by breed. Third, because identification of a dog’s breed may be subjective (even experts may disagree on the breed of a particular dog), DBRF may be differentially ascribed to breeds with a reputation for aggression. Fourth, it is not clear how to count attacks by crossbred dogs. Ignoring these data underestimates breed involvement (29% of attacking dogs were crossbred dogs), whereas including them permits a single dog to be counted more than once. Therefore, we have elected to present data separately for purebred and crossbred dogs to demonstrate at least 2 alternative counting methods. Relative rankings do not differ greatly whether one focuses only on purebred dogs or includes crossbred dogs. The crossbreed issue is also problematic when estimating denominators (ie, breed-specific population sizes).
The denominator of a dog breed-specific human DBRF rate requires reliable breed-specific population data. Unfortunately, such data are not currently available.
An often-asked question is what breed or breeds of dogs are most “dangerous”? This inquiry can be prompted by a serious attack by a specific dog, or it may be the result of media-driven portrayals of a specific breed as “dangerous.”12,13 Although this is a common concern, singling out 1 or 2 breeds for control can result in a false sense of accomplishment.14 Doing so ignores the true scope of the problem and will not result in a responsible approach to protecting a community’s citizens. Dog bite statistics are not really statistics, and they do not give an accurate picture of dogs that bite.7 Invariably the numbers will show that dogs from popular large breeds are a problem. This should be expected, because big dogs can physically do more damage if they do bite, and any popular breed has more individuals that could bite. Dogs from small breeds also bite and are capable of causing severe injury. There are several reasons why it is not possible to calculate a bite rate for a breed or to compare rates between breeds. First, the breed of the biting dog may not be accurately recorded, and mixed-breed dogs are commonly described as if they were purebreds. Second, the actual number of bites that occur in a community is not known, especially if they did not result in serious injury. Third, the number of dogs of a particular breed or combination of breeds in a community is not known, because it is rare for all dogs in a community to be licensed, and existing licensing data is then incomplete.7 Breed data likely vary between communities, states, or regions, and can even vary between neighborhoods within a community.You, Sir, are an example of how a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing.
You make statements like....
"continue to make your own choices on feeding defenseless people to dogs "
and then expect to be treated with any degree of respect or seriousness?
You'll be treated with the contempt you deserve.
I've wasted enough time on your foolishness, again...have a nice day.
There is a serious problem with Pit Bulls. It is called “the owner”.
Many breeds seem to have this problem.
It was not the date but the point I was making. Pits make the news but other breeds attack.
And to your point most dogs have the POTENTIAL to kill. I would take 65 to 80 lb pit attacking me than a Rotty that is 165 lbs, as the one I described.
I would much rather stare down a pit because they show signs, more than a Shepard which turns in an instant, with no warnings no growls. Or a Chow.
I just do not blame one breed, nor do I blame all Democrats, all Politicians, all Blacks, all Reporters..etc....
Too bad some FREEPERS cannot see the logic in that. Blame the people or animal responsible not all the people or all the animals.
Despite these limitations and concerns, the data indicate that Rottweilers and pit bull-type dogs accounted for 67% of human DBRF in the United States between 1997 and 1998. It is extremely unlikely that they accounted for anywhere near 60% of dogs in the United States during that same period and, thus, there appears to be a breed-specific problem with fatalities.
Other breeds do indeed attack but pits make the news for a reason...they attack and kill and attack in pairs etc. more than any other breed and several other breeds put together.
Here in Atlanta I’ve been listening out for these attacks and recently it’s almost ALWAYS a pit bull that makes the news.
And I’d rather have to fend off one 165 LB rottweiler than 2 65-80 LB pit bulls ANY day!
And personally, I don’t blame the pits AT ALL, but it shouldn’t take a rocket scientist to understand the idiots in this world that have targeted pits for their abuse (like Micahel Vick) have damaged the breed possibly to the point of no return either.
These a-holes knew what they were doing, they took a breed that was BRED to hunt and kill much like my little fox terrier, but the problem is they KNEW a fox terrier only got so big and only had just so much crushing jaw power and thus dangerous to small animals while pits can bring down an adult and 2 pits can dispatch a child before you can get to them.
Like I said, perhaps there’s a place for pit bulls, but the breed itself has been damaged. The longer this gets ignored, the more liekly the whole breed will get axed by knee-jerkers, but ignoring it or saying things like “other dogs kill too”, won’t help them in the end either!
My point was holding owners responsible. Period.
But you bring up drunk drivers... my feelings on that situation is that drunk drivers should see a much more harsh penalty when they kill someone than the currently typical “vehicular homicide:, or the also popular “negligent homicide”. Somewhat akin to me getting one of my firearms out of the safe and driving through random neighborhoods randomly firing off shots at houses and cars. A drunk driver knows what he/she is doing when they take a drink.
What am I omitting?.. the conclusion of your selection?...
" thus, there appears to be a breed-specific problem with fatalities."
...it is included in the first sentence of the Conclusions I posted....
"Although fatal attacks on humans appear to be a breed-specific problem (pit bull-type dogs and Rottweilers)"
They’ll be exterminated on sight—pit bulls, that is. As I wrote before, all who have had more than enough of those animals in rural areas should get or build incinerators to burn pit bull carcasses to ashes before tossing the bones out (where legal—includes most rural areas). Otherwise, worthless, overpopulating, wild pests will dig the carcasses up to feed to their young (and thus, propagating more problems).
On sight eh? You're going to be aiming into your neighbors yards and shooting them?
If you're talking about roaming dogs then watch your line of sight and carry on.
Many in Ontario have been arbitrarily refused firearms licenses without reasons
I'm in Ontario and have a firearms license, had no problem getting one
and have heard of no one being refused one for anything but legitimate reasons.
I have no idea where you are getting your information.
Wow! You really are a wacko.
I wouldn’t be comfortable living next to someone with a tiger or a lion. I’ve got small kids. I wouldn’t live next door to a zoo. I wouldn’t build next door to an active volcano. I wouldn’t search for the worst neighborhood known for gun violence and drive by shootings. You know personal responsibility and all.
All it takes is one mistake and bingo, dead kid. Dead anyone.
I love tigers but they’re wild animals, not pets. I don’t have anything against tigers, after all it’s never their fault if a person gets killed or someone’s mauled and nearly killed like that guy Roy from Siegfried and Roy; BUT when one is near, like with a pit bill coming near me, I don’t automatically assume the idiot with the leash is going to be “responsible”. I remain alert.
I’m even for people owning them responsibly. Tigers too.
But not in our neighborhood. I do believe we have covenenants about wild animals and I’m sorry tigers or lions just don’t make good pets. No more than say sharks, wolves, bears, cougars or hyenas would.
If you live out in a rural area, and don’t mind living next to a zoo for instance, that’s your call.
I’m all for personal responsibility too.
But what I all too often see, is people ARE NOT reponsible and all too often to find this out, a kid ends up dead.
It’s not like we can go back and tell people they had a bad dog with no warning signs or their tiger wasn’t properly fastened and by doing so NOW will bring back a dead kid. It won’t.
So until people know more about pit bulls and quit trying to make pets out of wild and dangerous animals, we’re ALL stuck.
Personal responsibiltiy is all fine and dandy but it’s certainly no given!
And exactly what recourse DOES a person have if an otherwise known pit bull with no history of aggression suddenly snaps and kills a kid or a tiger or lion gets loose and kills a kid?
They sue?
Even if the owner had alot of money, or the zoo or whatever was THEN held accountable and responsible, it sure won’t bring the kid back and the animal will be put down.
Did the person next door have ANY regulation over owning a tiger? or lion?
You don’t fly a flag, where are you located?
This is what I’m talking about. I don’t want to click on them ... however, these people put such upsetting and graphic words in the title of the thread. You “can’t” miss 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.