Posted on 04/06/2009 7:39:41 AM PDT by stinkerpot65
The scene was so gruesome that even seasoned emergency responders broke down and cried.
"They were never agressive; never seen them agressive," Watson said. "Never bit no one."
"I'm scared," Watson said. "I've got three kids who are going to be without a mom to be there for them."
Watson was sentenced to seven years in prison; that's part of the reason she can't stop crying.
(Excerpt) Read more at wfaa.com ...
The constitution doesn’t guarantee anyone the right to keep a certain breed of dogs. And, FWIW, I’v enever heard anyone talking about a ban on Giant Schnauzers or Akidas or even Fila Brasileiros even though anyone of these dogs is potentially as dangerous as a pitbull because they aren’t as commonly available or as notorious as pit bulls. That being said, I have always contended that ownership of a pitbull should be regulated at the state level just as much as a handgun. I understand the need for the breed but I think we need to ensure that owners have mandatory liability insurance on the dog and they need to demonstrate that they are in compliance with the ownership laws anually and at the request of neighbors and LE, laws that demonstrate that the owners have positive control over the animal at all times. And I disagree with your “99%” figure.
We owned a half pit bull and half bull dog. He was a wonderful dog and never showed agression to people. Other dogs...that’s a different story.
It’s a valid point that the irresponsible owners will tend towards those breeds. The same can be said, however, for an irresponsible gun owner. The 2nd amendment says “well maintained” which in the language of the day meant both properly equipped and properly trained. There is absolutely no doubt that founders would approve of a battle tank in private possession if that person were suitably and properly trained (e.g. a caretaker of a military museum). The idea that freedom should be limited based on some lowest common denominator of responsibility is an anathema to me. It’s not a leap at all to condition the public from scary dog breeds to scary gun breeds. That notion must be avoided.
I dont know what I would do if I was forced to live somewhere that was violent and unsafe. I just thank the good Lord that so far all I’ve needed is my home security system. I’d hate to have to own a gun or an attack dog.
My cousins owned pit bulls, but only one at a time. They finally switched breeds, not because they were violent, but because they kept getting stolen. The kicker was when they saw their last one — Brutus — going crazy trying to get out of some drug dealer’s cadillac when he saw them on the street close to their house. I dont guess you call the police when a pusher steals your pit bull.
Wow! And what does the Constitution do? It provides limited powers to the federal government. And unless owning a pit bull involves interstate commerce, the federal government has no Constitutional authority to get be involved in this issue.
My sister has a jack-rat, people moved in next door to her that breed pits. The pits have come over and under the fence into her yards and attacked her dog once, but she was able to stop it before too much damage was done. There is nothing she can do about it. So now, my sister owned her house first, but can’t even let her little dog in it’s own backyard because of the idiots next door.
And when the government took over the banks, there wasn't anyone talking about the government taking over the auto industry....
“The primary risk is the owner, not the dog.”
I don’t necessarily disagree with you as I am of the “Good Owner, Great Dog” philosophy. However, there is a clear difference in breeds and liability/risk with each breed. I chose to own a lab, which carries a risk of jumping on people and knocking them to the ground causing injury. I worked very hard to train this behaviour out of mine and am only partially confident in that training. As a result, I know to shorten her leash if people approach.
I would not have that risk if I had decided on a bijon (sp?). I would instead have a potential risk of that smaller dog burrowing into my neighbor’s yard and damaging their flower beds. If I had decided on a Pit, then I would have different risks to worry about than with my lab’s jumping problem.....
I just have a hard time understanding why any person would chose the potential risks associated with owning a pit, or a rott. I am not advocating that any breed be banned, but I am advocating that the owners be willing to assume any responsibility for damage caused by the known risks with any breed.
These particular owners don’t seem to understand this concept.
“They are HIGHLY unpredictable and aggressive due to genetic damage.”
That’s the tragic part of all this. Pit bulls weren’t always known to be a vicious breed, but these damn puppy mill operators and other illicit breeders churn them out with no regard to temperament, health, etc. THEY need to start having some penalties come down on them, too.
Thanks for your comments. All very reasonable thoughts.
But I still think that all pit bulls should have all of their teeth pulled. ;-)
After my father died, I was staying at a duplex he owned in the country. The renters in the other half were young and irresponsible. They had a cat which ran loose and was not fed very well. Almost every day it killed a songbird, chipmunk or the like. I was angry, but couldn’t really blame the hungry cat. Cats should not run loose except where they are needed to keep rats under control
Your “ban all Pitbulls” logic sounds just like the leftists argument for banning firearms. Stop hating the breed because of irresponsible owners. My prayers for the family that lost their child.
If the insurance premium is charged based on measurable risks, I would agree. That means, for example, measuring the history of the owner and their risk factors, not just the breed.
Beg to differ. Against my advice, my son got a pit bull puppy. He had four girls at the time aged 5, 2, 1, and 1 (twins). My question to him at the time was "Just how many spare daughters do you have?"
One day when the pup was about 10 months old he put the two year old's head in his mouth and was clamping down. Her mother responded to the screams and disengaged the dog and gave first aid to the cuts. Later when my son got home he and the dog made a one-way trip to the woods.
What's really sad is that now he won't have any dog in the house and the kids are missing out on just how much companionship a good dog can bring to the family.
You didn’t miss anything. I felt the same way when I heard that comment.
Perhaps owners of larger breeds should be required to take a licensing test indicating knowledge of law, and dog care and that of other critters. They should also perhaps be required to have some kind of liability insurance. This goes also for chimps, lions, tigers and other large pets, as well as poison snakes, constrictors, alligators and the like. The fee could help defray the cost to the municipality of these large dogs and other creatures.
Dogs are incredibly smart and they will figure a way to get out. If people walk them regularly they probably are less apt to want to run away. They probably want freedom like anyone else except Obama voters who want to be wards of the state.
The breeds most likely to killIn recent years, the dogs responsible for the bulk of the homicides are pit bulls and Rottweilers:
"Studies indicate that pit bull-type dogs were involved in approximately a third of human DBRF (i.e., dog bite related fatalities) reported during the 12-year period from 1981 through1992, and Rottweilers were responsible for about half of human DBRF reported during the 4 years from 1993 through 1996....[T]he 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." (Sacks JJ, Sinclair L, Gilchrist J, Golab GC, Lockwood R. Breeds of dogs involved in fatal human attacks in the United States between 1979 and 1998. JAVMA 2000;217:836-840.)The Clifton study of attacks from 1982 through 2006 produced similar results. According to Clifton study, pit bulls, Rottweilers, Presa Canarios and their mixes were responsible for 65% of the canine homicides that occurred during a period of 24 years in the USA. (Clifton, Dog attack deaths and maimings, U.S. & Canada, September 1982 to November 13, 2006; click here to read it.)
Other breeds were also responsible for homicides, but to a much lesser extent. A 1997 study of dog bite fatalities in the years 1979 through 1996 revealed that the following breeds had killed one or more persons: pit bulls, Rottweilers, German shepherds, huskies, Alaskan malamutes, Doberman pinschers, chows, Great Danes, St. Bernards and Akitas. (Dog Bite Related Fatalities," Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, May 30, 1997, Vol. 46, No. 21, pp. 463 et. seq.) Since 1975, fatal attacks have been attributed to dogs from at least 30 breeds.
The most horrifying example of the lack of breed predictability is the October 2000 death of a 6-week-old baby, which was killed by her family's Pomeranian dog. The average weight of a Pomeranian is about 4 pounds, and they are not thought of as a dangerous breed. Note, however, that they were bred to be watchdogs! The baby's uncle left the infant and the dog on a bed while the uncle prepared her bottle in the kitchen. Upon his return, the dog was mauling the baby, who died shortly afterwards. ("Baby Girl Killed by Family Dog," Los Angeles Times, Monday, October 9, 2000, Home Edition, Metro Section, Page B-5.)
In all fairness, therefore, it must be noted that:
- Any dog, treated harshly or trained to attack, may bite a person. Any dog can be turned into a dangerous dog. The owner or handler most often is responsible for making a dog into something dangerous.
- An irresponsible owner or dog handler might create a situation that places another person in danger by a dog, without the dog itself being dangerous, as in the case of the Pomeranian that killed the infant (see above).
- Any individual dog may be a good, loving pet, even though its breed is considered to be potentially dangerous. A responsible owner can win the love and respect of a dog, no matter its breed. One cannot look at an individual dog, recognize its breed, and then state whether or not it is going to attack.
To learn more about dog attacks, see Why dogs bite people To learn about how to take some of the bite out of the dog bite epidemic, see Attorney Kenneth Phillips' 10-point plan for Preventing Dog Bites.
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.