Woman viciously attacked by pitbull; Dog attacked at least three other times (probation for dogs?)

Iknowbakersfield ^

[chance33_98]

Woman viciously attacked by pitbull; Dog attacked at least three other times

By Maya Sanchez

KGET 17 News

08/27/02

Bakersfield - An Oildale woman wants some answers as to why a vicious dog, with a history of assault wasn't restrained.

Charlotte Reintz says it took just seconds yesterday for a pitbull to attack her.

She says she's traumatized and wonders why something wasn't done about the dog that has apparently attacked, not once, not twice, but at least three previous times.

Reintz was viciously attacked by a pitbull on Belle Avenue in Oildale while walking to a friend's house Sunday.

"I put my shirt out like this and it just started biting my shirt to keep it from biting me any more and it seemed like forever before somebody came out there," said Reintz.

Her piercing screams sent neighbors rushing from their homes to rescue her.

"I got up to see what it was and we brought her here in the yard," said neighbor Kenneth Caudillo. "The guy next door helped get the dog off of her and we helped her call 911."

Neighbors say the traumatic assault should never have happened.

"This animal had a dangerous order placed on it in Sept. of 2001, after a couple of incidents which required the animal to be maintained within its yard on a tether not less than 12 feet," said Steve McCalley of Kern County Environmental Health. "Apparently it has not been maintained consistent with the dangerous order."

Now, Reintz is nursing wounds in her hands, legs, and chest area, but she says her injuries run deep.

Reintz says she can't comment on whether she'll pursue any type of legal action in light of the attack.

The dog will remain under quarantine at the animal shelter pending the outcome of the investigation.

The owner has five business days to appeal the quarantine order before the dog is put down.

[duckln]

No insults intended, just having a little fun, in fact I have a 'small' set of mounted longhorns around here somewhere.

But I do get riled each time I hear of an avoidable tragedy involving pitbulls. It seems to happen much to often. My buddies daughter has 2 pitbulls and I give him hell around the clock. You wouldn't want to be in his shoes.

[Snowy]

*yawn*. Again, nice try. Some breeds have aggressive tendencies, and some don't. Look at the 6 links I posted before. Pits and Rots are known for being aggressive, and because of this, they are at the top of the "dog bite" list. These aggressive breeds need owners that know what they are doing. Most owners don't, and therefore these dogs are often problems. Please tell me if I have to use smaller words...

[HELLRAISER II]

Chows, Pits & Rots have bad reps, I only mentions Chows because I have personal dislike for them. But if you read all my posts I also said & I quote: "But my dislike is based on 3 dogs & i'm not about to tell somebody they shouldn't have one based on 3 dogs that I know of." Everybody has their preference and so do I, I pick Pits you pick Chows & we deserve every right to do so. By the way even though I dislike Chows, they are very beautiful animals. I especially think the Blue tongues are pretty neat.

[flyervet]

Hey, everyone is entitled to their own opinions about dogs. Just as you like to express your preference for Pits when they're criticized, I like to express my preference for Chows.

As I said earlier, I have a lot of sympathy for dangerous dogs. However, I agree Chows are much more attractive than Pits and Rotties. Unfortunately, their fluffy good looks make them appealing and people tend to focus more on that than the fact that strange dogs can be dangerous. I can think of more than one occasion where a wayward child tried to grab one of our dogs. Unfortunately, Chow owners have to be especially dilligent because our dogs look like living stuffed animals.

[flyervet]

In-breeding is a problem for all dog breeds, and is a major factor in poor temperment and aggression. That's why it's important for people to purchase dogs from responsible breeders, not puppy mills and not backyard breeders. We like rescue dogs because it's very satisfying to turn a dog around and give him or her a second chance at life, but they do require more of a commitment in medical care and training.

I've seen the effects of poor breeding first hand, and it isn't pretty. But breeding isn't destiny, either.

[dtel]

The Centers for Disease Control study dog bite incidents, including the types of dogs most likely to bite. The breeds that the CDC considers highest risk are pit bulls, Rottweilers, German shepherds, Huskies, Alaskan malamutes, Doberman pinschers, Chows, Great Danes, St. Bernards and Akitas.

Although pit bull mixes and Rottweillers are most likely to kill and seriously maim, fatal attacks since 1975 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 most often is responsible -- not the breed, and not the dog.
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 likely to bite. 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.
The public should beware that in all cases irresponsible owners are the problem. The reason is that irresponsible behavior has caused a rising and unacceptable injury and death toll, which authorities are determined to stem.

"Irresponsible behavior" is defined differently from place to place. In California, for example, it can be a felony for a person to possess a dog trained to fight, attack or kill that, because of the owner's lack of ordinary care, bites two people or seriously injures one person.

In different parts of the United States at the current time, there are a number of parents who are on trial for manslaughter because their dogs have killed their children. In these cases, the prosecutors have taken the position that the parents behaved irresponsibly because they left their children in the company of dogs most likely to bite.

There is an 8 out of 10 chance that a biting dog is male. (Humane Society of the United States.) There is a 6 out of 10 chance that a biting dog has not been neutered. (Humane Society of the United States.)

---

This info is from your link.
As this proves, any dog in the wrong situation can kill.
I sure don't recall seeing that Pom attack splashed over the front page.

[Snowy]

As this proves, any dog in the wrong situation can kill.

Sure they can. However, the vast majority of maulings are from Pits and Rots, and that is why they are considered dangerous. Follow?

[dtel]

Any dog, treated harshly or trained to attack, may bite a person. Any dog can be turned into a dangerous dog. The owner most often is responsible -- not the breed, and not the dog.

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 likely to bite. 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.

The public should beware that in all cases irresponsible owners are the problem. The reason is that irresponsible behavior has caused a rising and unacceptable injury and death toll, which authorities are determined to stem.

See big sentence above. If you want to trash a whole breed because of the actions of a few dumbasses, we will have to agree to disagree.

[Snowy]

There have been more than a few "dumbasses" (see those 6 links I posted before). I guess we will have to agree to disagree. The fact is that these dogs are hurting and killing people. The victim, or the victim's family doesn't care whose fault it was. The dog did it. Those who love these breeds should do what they can to stop the abuse these dogs are getting, and stop the irresponsible breeding. Until then, these dogs remain dangerous. Yes, some of these dogs and sweet and innocent, but those that aren't are serious threats to the public, and it doesn't matter who you want to fault for this - the outcome is the same.

[dtel]

"The increase in population of large dogs has resulted in an increased severity of bites. German shepherds were identified as the breed involved in 44% of all bite cases but accounted for only 22% of license registrations. Small purebred dogs accounted for less than 20% of bites but more than 40% of registrations. The pit bull terrier is a common cause of urban dog bite injuries in children. The major problem is that they are frequently (94%) unprovoked. These dogs are also freely roaming animals (67%).

If you don't have an agenda, why did you leave the first two sentences off this paragraph earlier?

Your paranoia should be directed at the German Shepherd, 44% of all bite cases. Let's see small breeds involved in 20% of bite cases. So 2/3 of all bite cases are by German Shepherds and small breeds. This leaves all the rest of the large breeds 1/3 of bite cases.

Hmmm.

[Snowy]

Paranoid? Nice straw man. If German Shepherds are reported to go on unprovoked rampages, then I will indeed put them on the list. For the record, we have a German Shepherd across the street from us. He bit a child in the butt, but the child was on the dog's property. Various family members of mine have had German Shepherds for years. They are indeed capable of biting, but I have not heard of unprovoked attacks. Please post a link for me if you find evidence of one.

Are we finished yet? It seems that you are out of ammo and are starting to resort to name-calling.

[dtel]

LOL
You tell me to go look at your links, I do.
Some of the info disputes your case, and every link you posted stated that problem dogs are because of problem owners.
Yeah we're done.

[Snowy]

I don't want you to leave in a haze of confusion. I stated that those dogs (Pits and Rots in that order), are at the top of the list of dogs and bite and injure (many times unprovoked). All my links support that. Therefore, those dogs are dangerous. I'm not the only person who thinks that way. No other obedience classes in my area would take Rots, so that is why there were so many in the class I attended. Just out of curiousity, what did you think my "case" was? Your case is obviously that all dogs are the same and one is not more dangerous than the other. I have successfully proved your case false. Now, unless you have anything to add about the case I actually made, then I would like to hear it. If not, then let me say that I wish you luck with your puppy and I hope he turns out to be the dog you wish him to be.

[dtel]

Your condescending attitude is very becoming. You wear it well.
You have stated your personal objection to Pits and Rots while ignoring stats that suggest, nay, prove that they are involved in the minority of bite cases in the USA.
The only relevant stat provided in any of your links is the fact there were 27 dog related deaths in 97,98. Rots accounted for 10, Pits, 6.
What breeds caused the other 11 deaths, your sites conveniently leave this info out.
Were any of these deaths related to protecting property or self defense, once again this info is conveniently left out.
I am just trying to point out the dog is as much to blame for a death as a gun. While you are saying they are a killing machine waiting for an opportunity. (That may not be totally accurate from your point of view, but that is the way it is coming across the 'net)
Both are inantimate objects until put in the wrong hands. See your instructors for reference.
With that being said, any dog that kills somebody, not related to self defense, should be immediately destroyed.
Have a good day.

[Travis McGee]

No dog would ever attack me or my family twice, I guarantee.

[Snowy]

LOL! You are right! Just yesterday I heard about a gun jumping out of it's drawer and bouncing down the street shooting people! It was horrible!

Seriously, it appears to me that you are trying to disprove those 6 web sites without any luck. You can disbelieve those sites if you like, but don't try to tell me that they are saying something completely different. I apologize if I sounded condescending. If you are so sure that all dogs are created equal, then post a link.

[dtel]

"The only relevant stat provided in any of your links is the fact there were 27 dog related deaths in 97,98. Rots accounted for 10, Pits, 6. What breeds caused the other 11 deaths, your sites conveniently leave this info out. Were any of these deaths related to protecting property or self defense, once again this info is conveniently left out."

Can you answer any of these questions?

"The increase in population of large dogs has resulted in an increased severity of bites. German shepherds were identified as the breed involved in 44% of all bite cases but accounted for only 22% of license registrations. Small purebred dogs accounted for less than 20% of bites but more than 40% of registrations. The pit bull terrier is a common cause of urban dog bite injuries in children. The major problem is that they are frequently (94%) unprovoked. These dogs are also freely roaming animals (67%).

How about these numbers?

Also notice how they give a percentage of unprovoked attacks from Pits, but decline to cite the actual number of bites.

All of this info comes from the sites you supplied, well I still haven't made it to two of them.

Interesting that two of the four sites I have visited were lawyers shilling for work.

Address these and I'll go searching to see what I can find. I am not angry at you and actually have found some good info because of this discourse. Thanks.

[dtel]

...However, the dogs most often responsible for severe bites to humans, especially children, in the US are Labrador Retrievers and German Shepherds and mixes of these breeds. These breeds are the most commonly owned dogs according to AKC registrations and dog licensing records. Increased popularity of guarding and fighting dogs measured by AKC registration growth, indicates that these dogs are becoming the most commonly owned breeds. So it is likely that they will soon be responsible for most bites.

From this site: Pet help

Here is the site for the American Temperament Test Society.

ATTS

[duckln]

As I mentioned earlier, one of my prize heifers is now missing part of her tail because of wild dogs or coyotes

Odds are your pit did it, boy are you dumb!

You let your dogs 'run' in the 'pasture' and then give them the run of the house? I suppose they don't shed, have fleas, poison ivy and maybe West Nile virus. Work dogs don't belong in the house, romping and slobering around.

You come across as an experimenting wacko, which is convincing me that a license should be required of Rot and Pit owners.

[FITZ]

I used to have a rottweiler/lab mix.

I have a stray that stayed that appears to be pitbull/lab mix --I doubt I would have let a pure pit stay around since I have kids with friends coming over ---the pitbull look with lab personality is a nice combo.