Posted on 04/27/2007 10:12:52 AM PDT by Omega Man II
Toddler dies after pit bull attack
From Live5 News
Authorities say a toddler was mauled to death when the family pit bull got loose from inside a laundry room and attacked the young boy.
Brian Palmer died Tuesday morning from his injuries. He would have turned two-years-old in August.
The 2-year-old dog was euthanized, and its head was sent to Columbia for testing.
Authorities say the dog had killed a family cat and fought with another dog within the last month. There were --no-- adults in the house when the attack occurred and the oldest of four children at the home was 16-years-old.
Story Created: Apr 25, 2007 at 8:54 AM EDT
Story Updated: Apr 26, 2007 at 1:21 PM EDT
pit-bulls are NO more likely to bite/maul/kill than any other working/sporting breed of that size (German shepards/dobies/rotties/collies/pointers/retrievers/etc.).
fyi, a "pit-bull" is defined by the NY SLIMES/Washington comPost/other LEFTIST rags as: ANY aggressive dog that has the capability to harm persons/pets/property.
this is EXACTLY the same sort of LIES that are told by the press about "assault weapons". the NY SLIMES "style manual" states that an "assault weapon" is: an object that can be utilized as a weapon to commit an assault upon a person.
the MOST common breed that bites a person is the French Poodle. the most common dog that MAULS /KILLS a person is a MIXED-BREED. (the press knows this, but it "doesn't sell advertising"!!!) it's a PACK of KNOWING LIES on the part of the media & all too many otherwise NORMAL/decent people believe those LIES. period. end of story.
free dixie,sw
LOTS of things that we take for granted are FAR more dangerous for UNSUPERVISED children than PITs & MORE likely to cause HARM to the child or other people.
FOR EXAMPLE: matches, gasoline, axes,saws, guns,power tools,motor vehicles, bicycles, etc. should NEVER be handles without responsible supervision by an adult.
would YOU allow your child's UNSUPERVISED access to ANY of the above items??? (i think NOT!)
free dixie,sw
In both cases,I kept a very close eye on them.After about a year,I gave up.The dogs I mentioned loved playing with the kids and I believe they looked forward to it.Not one incident ever occurred other than someone trying to gain access to the yard they were in.I happened to be watching out the window and thought it was very funny.The people attempting to get in,who were not supposed to be there,quickly left the scene.The kids were not at all worried at the dogs response,which would make any man nervous.After,they all went back to playing as if nothing ever happened.They would play catch and tug of war with the toys.The dogs loved their treats and the kids loved giving it to them.And they loved teasing the dogs as much as the dogs loved to always “win”!Many times they would poop out together and to see the dogs and kids napping under a tree with the dogs as pillows was comical.It is the owners that influence the dogs in their formative years.Bad habits are almost impossible to eradicate in a dogs later years.Sorry you get so much crap from people to dumb to ask their vets a simple question.If they take em to the vets at all!!
If that study is to be cited then the conclusions of the sudy should be noted.
“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 bites. (J Am Vet
Med Assoc 2000;217:836–840)”
And if any one is interested, from the Discussion section of the study...
“Another concern is that a ban on a specific breed
might cause people who want a dangerous dog to simply
turn to another breed for the same qualities they
sought in the original dog (eg, large size, aggression
easily fostered). Breed-specific legislation does not
address the fact that a dog of any breed can become
dangerous when bred or trained to be aggressive. From
a scientific point of view, we are unaware of any formal
evaluation of the effectiveness of breed-specific legislation
in preventing fatal or nonfatal dog bites.
An alternative to breed-specific legislation is to regulate
individual dogs and owners on the basis of their
behavior. Although, it is not systematically reported, our
reading of the fatal bite reports indicates that problem
behaviors (of dogs and owners) have preceded attacks in
a great many cases and should be sufficient evidence for
preemptive action. Approaches to decreasing dangerous
dog and owner behaviors are numerous. The potential
importance of strong animal control programs is illustrated
by our data; from 1979 through 1998, 24% of
human DBRF were caused by owned dogs (typically
more than 1) that were roaming off the owners’ property.
Some deaths might have been averted through more
stringent animal control laws and enforcement (eg, leash
laws, fencing requirements). Although the bite prevention
effectiveness of such animal control ordinances and
programs has not been systematically evaluated, freeroaming
dogs and dogs with menacing behavior are
problems that need to be addressed even if they do not
bite (eg, causing bicycle or car crashes).
Generic non–breed-specific, dangerous dog laws
can be enacted that place primary responsibility for a
dog’s behavior on the owner, regardless of the dog’s
breed.17 In particular, targeting chronically irresponsible
dog owners may be effective.18 If dog owners are
required to assume legal liability for the behavior and
actions of their pets, they may be encouraged to seek
professional help in training and socializing their pets.
Other options include enforcing leash laws and laws
against dog fighting. We noticed in the fatal cases, that
less than one half of 1% of DBRF were caused by
leashed animals off the owners’ property. Subdivisions
and municipalities that outlaw fences or limit fences to
heights insufficient for controlling large dogs may be
increasing the probability of children interacting with
unsupervised dogs. Scientific evaluations of the effects
of such regulations are important.
Education of dog owners can address several issues:
(1) understanding breed profiles19,20 may assist owners in
selecting the appropriate dog for their lifestyle and training
abilities, (2) convincing owners to seriously consider
the sex and reproductive status of their dogs is important
because male and sexually intact dogs are more likely
to bite than are female and neutered dogs,12 and (3)
teaching owners about the importance of socialization
and training may decrease their likelihood of owning a
dog that will eventually bite.
Veterinarians play a key role in educating pet owners,
but because many dogs that bite may not be seen
by a veterinarian prior to the bite incident, programs
that encourage responsible ownership must also be
presented through other venues. Public education
strategies should include school-based and adult educational
programs addressing bite prevention and basic
canine behavior, care, and management. Programs
should strive to ensure that dogs receive proper socialization,
exercise, and attention; that they are given adequate
food, water, shelter, and veterinary care; that
they are neutered if they are not maintained for legitimate
and responsible breeding purposes; and that they
are trained humanely and confined safely. However,like breed-specific legislation, all these approaches
appear formally unevaluated for effectiveness.
Targeting and evaluation of prevention efforts
requires improved surveillance for fatal and nonfatal
dog bites. Dog bites should be reported as required by
local or state ordinances, and reports of such incidents
should include information about the circumstances of
the bite, ownership, breed, sex, reproductive status of
the dog, history of prior aggression, and the nature of
restraint prior to the bite incident. Collection of data
on the entire dog population (eg, breed, age, sex)
would help resolve comparative risk issues and may be
accomplished by combining paperwork on mandatory
rabies immunizations with registration of breed and
sex. Only with numerator and denominator data and
with formal evaluations of the impacts of strategies
tried by various communities will we be able to make
science-based recommendations for decreasing the
number of dog bites. In the interim, adequate funding
for animal control agencies, enforcement of existing
animal control laws, and educational and policy strategies
to reduce inappropriate dog and owner behaviors
will likely result in benefits to communities and may
well decrease the number of dog bites that occur.”
They weren’t licking, they were tasting...as for the tail wagging...they were ascertaining whether or not you were willing to put up a fight...LOL
I’d rather be bitten then mauled...wouldn’t you?
Ping to #140
Here's an attempt at a partial solution...
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1823172/posts
Increased penalties for irresponsible owners is one leg of the stool.
It helps only incidentally with prevention by hammering home
that there are serious consequences to irresponsible ownership.
Focusing on prevention leads to two other conclusions.
All too many times before an attack occurs there have been complaints made against the owners,
letting their dogs run loose/inadequate containment/dog behaving aggressively etc.
or reports of free roaming dogs.
Whether through lack of will or resources,
or because leash/containment laws are too lax or non-existent,
the complaints are not resolved by animal control and the situation ends in tragedy.
So there must be rigorous enforcement of existing laws
and if need be enacting of leash/containment laws.
Finally, people need to be educated about dogs generally.
Owners must be knowledgeable about the breed they have choosen,
the factors that may increase the likelihood of aggressive
and what responsible dog ownership entails.
There are a number of ways this can be done, through schools, as part of the licensing process,
by community awareness programs and by the activism of responsible dog owners.
Ok, that was rather badly phrased on my part. They don’t generally weigh as much or have jaws as strong. That said someone else posted about a nasty mauling and I can believe it...
LOL! Great comment on the Satan disguised as a friend. ha.
Its not that they are a vicious breed...there ae many that are able to get angry...but the jaws on these animals make them especially lethal.
I guess its just that we don’t hear AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN of other dogs fatally destroying a human. So lets all just “ be fair” and continue to let pitt bulls maul and kill! TALK ABOUT POLITICAL CORRECTNESS !!
Good point!
Amen. And I pray that the 16 year old does not forever blame himself. A child might have opened the laundry room door but the parents should have had the dog secured. I’d never keep a dog that killed my cat in the first place.
“I’m with you. I’ve never heard of a collie, irish setter, or sheltie maul a kid to death...”
Chihuahuas would, but it’d take ‘em forever.
Seriously, if you have to lock the family pet up to keep the children safe, there’s something wrong with the dog.
FATAL is one operative word. The numbers would probably be a lot scarier if it hadn't left out other operative words, like "critical injury maulings." Those are the ones that get me -- the mailman who gets his leg permanently injured because of a cranky Rottweiler, or the kid who has to undergo several bouts of surgery after being mauled by a pit or pit mix.
Ban the breed? For my part, I'd be satisfied if I could freely pack heat and shoot the damned dogs if they act up.
Which is scarier?
1. Stupid guy with a pit bull
2. Stupid guy with a bassett hound
Nah, it's not a breed problem. *rolls eyes*
The question I have is why CHOOSE a pit bull when so many other breeds are available? Why CHOOSE the one dog breed with the most negative press( right or wrong), the one that people fear and the one that will automatically get you discriminated against( right or wrong).
I’ve heard all the arguments.
I think there is something in the psychological makeup of people who CHOOSE pit bulls that is very much like that of women who are drawn to incarcerated men. They seek them out, they write them, send money, defend them and even marry them despite their pasts.
The danger factor IS the draw. It fascinates, it makes one feel powerful to have control of an animal that society considers fearsome and threatening.
Whether it is fair or not to consider the entire breed dangerous in DNA, that IS the growing public opinion of pit bulls.
So what is it that they give an owner( besides higher insurance premiums and negative public opinion) that another breed can’t offer?
I won't attack your vast knowledge on the basis this,
but I do wish you would answer the question I've put to you,
what has been ...3 times already, namely...
How many 'pit bulls' have you trained?
the instinct to bite and fight is hard wired into every pitt bull alive today
This should not come as a shock
but the instinct to bite and fight is hard wired into every dog alive today.
They're not descended from lambs, you know :~D
FWIW I agree with the last section of your post
When a border collie herds, no one suggests that it's the upbringing. When a lab retrieves, no one suggests that it is the owner's training rubbing off... when a pit bull does what that breed usually does, there has to be another explanation?
Well said.
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.