Some folks just hate all ‘pitbulls’.
I can live with that.
What I find inexcusable though,
is the deliberate omission of facts when they post the story of an attack.
For example, the first FR posting of this story contained a big
~SNIP~
that happened to include this very important aspect of the attack...
“Kevin picked up a bone lying on the ground near the dog, which was kept on a chain.
That’s when Mickey suddenly attacked Kevin.”
This is information vital to understanding what happened
and to help prevent similar attacks, regardless of type/breed, from happening in the future.
I’m at a loss to find a rational reason for excluding it.
We can’t assume everyone is going to go to the link so why leave such salient information out?
Does the poster think it will take some of the responsibility for the attack away from the dog and they can’t abide that?
The fixated hatred for ‘pitbulls’ appears to trump some folks professed compassion for dog attack victims.
Similar to what I saw when dogsbite.org was provided with confirmed information that a dog they identified as a ‘pit bull’ was in fact a Yellow Lab. They refused to amend their report. How does publishing lies, misinformation and half truths while leaving out facts help prevent dog attacks?
Enjoy.