Yet another Pitt Bull attack (2 Viewers)

[Cunk]

I guess deciding to buy a pit bull is kind of like deciding to bungee jump. Hardly anyone ever gets hurt bungee jumping but if something does go wrong then you're F'd.

A better analogy would be that bungee jumping is very safe when you make sure you follow all safety procedures. Pitt Bulls are very safe in the hands of a dog owner who is aware of their needs.That's the problem with most people that oppoose certain dog breeds, you don't understand that dogs aren't a toy. They need exercise, attention and affection.

Dogs aren't a toy? Well color me some kind of color which represents dogs not being a toy. So pit bulls who aren't afforded the exercise, attention and affection have 0% chance of attacking. They are a muscle bound dog who can do serious damage if they decide to do so. Knowing this I would decide to not have one.

To say that Pitt Bulls are safe in the hands of dog owners who are aware of their needs just makes our (anti-pit) crowd all the more correct. Thanks!

 

[AmosMoses]

They need exercise, attention and affection.

And just sometimes they need the flesh of a 6 year old.

I do find it amusing that the people that are pro pitt bull are the only ones able to hold a rational conversation. It's comments like this that just make you look like a complete tool, until my pit bull eats my children and neighbors.

fixed

Thank you for contiuing to prove my point. It is interesting that so many of you have absolutly no interst in educating yourselves on the topic or getting eaten by a pitbull.

fixed

 

[thayman]

I guess deciding to buy a pit bull is kind of like deciding to bungee jump. Hardly anyone ever gets hurt bungee jumping but if something does go wrong then you're F'd.

A better analogy would be that bungee jumping is very safe when you make sure you follow all safety procedures. Pitt Bulls are very safe in the hands of a dog owner who is aware of their needs.That's the problem with most people that oppoose certain dog breeds, you don't understand that dogs aren't a toy. They need exercise, attention and affection.

Dogs aren't a toy? Well color me some kind of color which represents dogs not being a toy. So pit bulls who aren't afforded the exercise, attention and affection have 0% chance of attacking. They are a muscle bound dog who can do serious damage if they decide to do so. Knowing this I would decide to not have one.

To say that Pitt Bulls are safe in the hands of dog owners who are aware of their needs just makes our (anti-pit) crowd all the more correct. Thanks!

So you agree then, it's the owner, not the breed.

 

[Cunk]

I guess deciding to buy a pit bull is kind of like deciding to bungee jump. Hardly anyone ever gets hurt bungee jumping but if something does go wrong then you're F'd.

A better analogy would be that bungee jumping is very safe when you make sure you follow all safety procedures. Pitt Bulls are very safe in the hands of a dog owner who is aware of their needs.That's the problem with most people that oppoose certain dog breeds, you don't understand that dogs aren't a toy. They need exercise, attention and affection.

Dogs aren't a toy? Well color me some kind of color which represents dogs not being a toy. So pit bulls who aren't afforded the exercise, attention and affection have 0% chance of attacking. They are a muscle bound dog who can do serious damage if they decide to do so. Knowing this I would decide to not have one.

To say that Pitt Bulls are safe in the hands of dog owners who are aware of their needs just makes our (anti-pit) crowd all the more correct. Thanks!

So you agree then, it's the owner, not the breed.

It's a tough call. While a good owner will lessen an attack by a pit bull, there is always the natural instinct of the dog which would make me not have one. But if you think it's worth the risk. Well...

 

[thayman]

I guess deciding to buy a pit bull is kind of like deciding to bungee jump. Hardly anyone ever gets hurt bungee jumping but if something does go wrong then you're F'd.

A better analogy would be that bungee jumping is very safe when you make sure you follow all safety procedures. Pitt Bulls are very safe in the hands of a dog owner who is aware of their needs.That's the problem with most people that oppoose certain dog breeds, you don't understand that dogs aren't a toy. They need exercise, attention and affection.

Dogs aren't a toy? Well color me some kind of color which represents dogs not being a toy. So pit bulls who aren't afforded the exercise, attention and affection have 0% chance of attacking. They are a muscle bound dog who can do serious damage if they decide to do so. Knowing this I would decide to not have one.

To say that Pitt Bulls are safe in the hands of dog owners who are aware of their needs just makes our (anti-pit) crowd all the more correct. Thanks!

So you agree then, it's the owner, not the breed.

It's a tough call. While a good owner will lessen an attack by a pit bull, there is always the natural instinct of the dog which would make me not have one. But if you think it's worth the risk. Well...

And this is really the problem I have with people that take your stance. If you bothered to look into anything other than sensational headlines you would know it isn't the dog's natural instinct to attack a person.

 

[AmosMoses]

I guess deciding to buy a pit bull is kind of like deciding to bungee jump. Hardly anyone ever gets hurt bungee jumping but if something does go wrong then you're F'd.

A better analogy would be that bungee jumping is very safe when you make sure you follow all safety procedures. Pitt Bulls are very safe in the hands of a dog owner who is aware of their needs.That's the problem with most people that oppoose certain dog breeds, you don't understand that dogs aren't a toy. They need exercise, attention and affection.

Dogs aren't a toy? Well color me some kind of color which represents dogs not being a toy. So pit bulls who aren't afforded the exercise, attention and affection have 0% chance of attacking. They are a muscle bound dog who can do serious damage if they decide to do so. Knowing this I would decide to not have one.

To say that Pitt Bulls are safe in the hands of dog owners who are aware of their needs just makes our (anti-pit) crowd all the more correct. Thanks!

So you agree then, it's the owner, not the breed.

It's a tough call. While a good owner will lessen an attack by a pit bull, there is always the natural instinct of the dog which would make me not have one. But if you think it's worth the risk. Well...

And this is really the problem I have with people that take your stance. If you bothered to look into anything other than sensational headlines you would know it isn't the dog's natural instinct to attack a person.

You say this because many of the people that would disagree with you are dead from pitbull attacks.

 

[Cunk]

I guess deciding to buy a pit bull is kind of like deciding to bungee jump. Hardly anyone ever gets hurt bungee jumping but if something does go wrong then you're F'd.

A better analogy would be that bungee jumping is very safe when you make sure you follow all safety procedures. Pitt Bulls are very safe in the hands of a dog owner who is aware of their needs.That's the problem with most people that oppoose certain dog breeds, you don't understand that dogs aren't a toy. They need exercise, attention and affection.

Dogs aren't a toy? Well color me some kind of color which represents dogs not being a toy. So pit bulls who aren't afforded the exercise, attention and affection have 0% chance of attacking. They are a muscle bound dog who can do serious damage if they decide to do so. Knowing this I would decide to not have one.

To say that Pitt Bulls are safe in the hands of dog owners who are aware of their needs just makes our (anti-pit) crowd all the more correct. Thanks!

So you agree then, it's the owner, not the breed.

It's a tough call. While a good owner will lessen an attack by a pit bull, there is always the natural instinct of the dog which would make me not have one. But if you think it's worth the risk. Well...

And this is really the problem I have with people that take your stance. If you bothered to look into anything other than sensational headlines you would know it isn't the dog's natural instinct to attack a person.

Boink! (that's me hitting you on the head wit a mallet).

 

[Reg Lllama of Brixton]

I guess deciding to buy a pit bull is kind of like deciding to bungee jump. Hardly anyone ever gets hurt bungee jumping but if something does go wrong then you're F'd.

A better analogy would be that bungee jumping is very safe when you make sure you follow all safety procedures. Pitt Bulls are very safe in the hands of a dog owner who is aware of their needs.That's the problem with most people that oppoose certain dog breeds, you don't understand that dogs aren't a toy. They need exercise, attention and affection.

Dogs aren't a toy? Well color me some kind of color which represents dogs not being a toy. So pit bulls who aren't afforded the exercise, attention and affection have 0% chance of attacking. They are a muscle bound dog who can do serious damage if they decide to do so. Knowing this I would decide to not have one.

To say that Pitt Bulls are safe in the hands of dog owners who are aware of their needs just makes our (anti-pit) crowd all the more correct. Thanks!

So you agree then, it's the owner, not the breed.

It's a tough call. While a good owner will lessen an attack by a pit bull, there is always the natural instinct of the dog which would make me not have one. But if you think it's worth the risk. Well...

And this is really the problem I have with people that take your stance. If you bothered to look into anything other than sensational headlines you would know it isn't the dog's natural instinct to attack a person.

You say this because many of the people that would disagree with you are dead from pitbull attacks.

 

[Sweet J]

Solid work in here by moops and moses.

Regarding the subject at hand: Our family has been on the watch for a good family dog. I wanted a big, hairy, slobbery, dumb, dog's-dog, generally a lab of some sort. My wife wanted a dog that didn't shed, didn't smell, and didn't drool. Like some sort of sh^tty little terrier of some sort. So we had our work cut out for us.

After multiple trips to the shelter and humane society, we finally found a cute little black lab mix, about 45 pounds or so, that did the trick. He was fun and engaging, and loving to the kids. We visited him twice at the shelter, and both times he would run and play with the kids for a little bit, but then come back and just lay down to where my wife and I were sitting. Short haired, no drooling, not smelly. But juuuust "doggy" enough for me. Sold.

We brought him home, and a neighbor came over to see the dog, and he kind of stiffened and was like "that's a pit bull." My wife and I just looked at eachother and said "wait, what? No, no, that's a lab mix." Our neighbor laughed and shook his head. Sure enough, anyone else who came to visit would ask us, "why'd you decide to get a pit bull?" And we'd be like, no, that's not a pit bull, that's a lab mix. . . .

So I've been on line and looked at pictures. And I called the shelter. And yes, it is a pit of some general mixture. Certainly more pit than anything else. Whoops. He is a pretty much awesome dog, though. All he wants to do is be around us or the kids. Sleeps with my son and daughter at night (since we got the dog, the kids fight over who gets to sleep with the dog, so they trade off with the three of them all sleeping in either my son or my daughter's bed. He always is just . . . there, at our feet.

At the dog park he's strangely submissive. He is completely uninterested in other dogs. And when other dogs do come up to him he doesn't growl or get weird or anything. If anything, he tries to avoid rough play with other dogs. Not sure what that is about yet.

The one thing that is a little strange about him is that he LOVES to play tug-of-war with his toys. We got him this one toy which is a ball attached to a length of rope, and he constantly wants my to play with him with it (he picks it up and brings it over to me and tries to shove it into my hand, and when I grab it, he immediately pulls back to play). That's not strange, I guess. The strange thing is the gutteral sounds that come out of his throat when he plays tug of war. I happen to know that these are "I'm having fun playing" sounds, but someone who didn't know him would likely be somewhat freaked out by his loud growling he does. So we don't play tug of war in front of friends anymore.

So. . . . that is my pitbull story. Never thought I'd have one.

 

[eoMMan]

Jesus Christ, this thread blows.

 

[Reg Lllama of Brixton]

Solid work in here by moops and moses.Regarding the subject at hand: Our family has been on the watch for a good family dog. I wanted a big, hairy, slobbery, dumb, dog's-dog, generally a lab of some sort. My wife wanted a dog that didn't shed, didn't smell, and didn't drool. Like some sort of sh^tty little terrier of some sort. So we had our work cut out for us.After multiple trips to the shelter and humane society, we finally found a cute little black lab mix, about 45 pounds or so, that did the trick. He was fun and engaging, and loving to the kids. We visited him twice at the shelter, and both times he would run and play with the kids for a little bit, but then come back and just lay down to where my wife and I were sitting. Short haired, no drooling, not smelly. But juuuust "doggy" enough for me. Sold.We brought him home, and a neighbor came over to see the dog, and he kind of stiffened and was like "that's a pit bull." My wife and I just looked at eachother and said "wait, what? No, no, that's a lab mix." Our neighbor laughed and shook his head. Sure enough, anyone else who came to visit would ask us, "why'd you decide to get a pit bull?" And we'd be like, no, that's not a pit bull, that's a lab mix. . . .So I've been on line and looked at pictures. And I called the shelter. And yes, it is a pit of some general mixture. Certainly more pit than anything else. Whoops. He is a pretty much awesome dog, though. All he wants to do is be around us or the kids. Sleeps with my son and daughter at night (since we got the dog, the kids fight over who gets to sleep with the dog, so they trade off with the three of them all sleeping in either my son or my daughter's bed. He always is just . . . there, at our feet.At the dog park he's strangely submissive. He is completely uninterested in other dogs. And when other dogs do come up to him he doesn't growl or get weird or anything. If anything, he tries to avoid rough play with other dogs. Not sure what that is about yet.The one thing that is a little strange about him is that he LOVES to play tug-of-war with his toys. We got him this one toy which is a ball attached to a length of rope, and he constantly wants my to play with him with it (he picks it up and brings it over to me and tries to shove it into my hand, and when I grab it, he immediately pulls back to play). That's not strange, I guess. The strange thing is the gutteral sounds that come out of his throat when he plays tug of war. I happen to know that these are "I'm having fun playing" sounds, but someone who didn't know him would likely be somewhat freaked out by his loud growling he does. So we don't play tug of war in front of friends anymore.So. . . . that is my pitbull story. Never thought I'd have one.

Be sure to post in here again after he kills someone.

 

[the moops]

They need exercise, attention and affection.

And just sometimes they need the flesh of a 6 year old.

I do find it amusing that the people that are pro pitt bull are the only ones able to hold a rational conversation. It's comments like this that just make you look like a complete tool.

It's a joke dude, relax. I have met about 1/2 dozen pit bulls in my life. Found them all to be sweet dogs. I used to dog sti for my neighbors dog all the time.

 

[Fensalk]

Was talking with someone who works for animal control and hunts down stray dogs. She definitely is in the camp that pit bulls are a dangerous breed and warns against approaching them. She takes extra precautions when having to corral them when loose.

 

[Fensalk]

Part of the problem might be the type of people who would own a pit bull are also the type of people to mistreat their dog and make them nasty.

 

[urbanhack]

I guess deciding to buy a pit bull is kind of like deciding to bungee jump. Hardly anyone ever gets hurt bungee jumping but if something does go wrong then you're F'd.

A better analogy would be that bungee jumping is very safe when you make sure you follow all safety procedures. Pitt Bulls are very safe in the hands of a dog owner who is aware of their needs.That's the problem with most people that oppoose certain dog breeds, you don't understand that dogs aren't a toy. They need exercise, attention and affection.

Dogs aren't a toy? Well color me some kind of color which represents dogs not being a toy. So pit bulls who aren't afforded the exercise, attention and affection have 0% chance of attacking. They are a muscle bound dog who can do serious damage if they decide to do so. Knowing this I would decide to not have one.

To say that Pitt Bulls are safe in the hands of dog owners who are aware of their needs just makes our (anti-pit) crowd all the more correct. Thanks!

So you agree then, it's the owner, not the breed.

It's a tough call.

No, it's not.

 

[urbanhack]

Was talking with someone who works for animal control and hunts down stray dogs. She definitely is in the camp that pit bulls are a dangerous breed and warns against approaching them. She takes extra precautions when having to corral them when loose.

Well this changes everything.

 

[AmosMoses]

I guess deciding to buy a pit bull is kind of like deciding to bungee jump. Hardly anyone ever gets hurt bungee jumping but if something does go wrong then you're F'd.

A better analogy would be that bungee jumping is very safe when you make sure you follow all safety procedures. Pitt Bulls are very safe in the hands of a dog owner who is aware of their needs.That's the problem with most people that oppoose certain dog breeds, you don't understand that dogs aren't a toy. They need exercise, attention and affection.

Dogs aren't a toy? Well color me some kind of color which represents dogs not being a toy. So pit bulls who aren't afforded the exercise, attention and affection have 0% chance of attacking. They are a muscle bound dog who can do serious damage if they decide to do so. Knowing this I would decide to not have one.

To say that Pitt Bulls are safe in the hands of dog owners who are aware of their needs just makes our (anti-pit) crowd all the more correct. Thanks!

So you agree then, it's the owner, not the breed.

It's a tough call.

No, it's not.

I agree. It was the owner, then it became the breed. Now it's the breed and the owner.

 

[Cunk]

I guess deciding to buy a pit bull is kind of like deciding to bungee jump. Hardly anyone ever gets hurt bungee jumping but if something does go wrong then you're F'd.

A better analogy would be that bungee jumping is very safe when you make sure you follow all safety procedures. Pitt Bulls are very safe in the hands of a dog owner who is aware of their needs.That's the problem with most people that oppoose certain dog breeds, you don't understand that dogs aren't a toy. They need exercise, attention and affection.

Dogs aren't a toy? Well color me some kind of color which represents dogs not being a toy. So pit bulls who aren't afforded the exercise, attention and affection have 0% chance of attacking. They are a muscle bound dog who can do serious damage if they decide to do so. Knowing this I would decide to not have one.

To say that Pitt Bulls are safe in the hands of dog owners who are aware of their needs just makes our (anti-pit) crowd all the more correct. Thanks!

So you agree then, it's the owner, not the breed.

It's a tough call.

No, it's not.

Oh,ok. Thought it was. Thanks.

 

[Sand]

Chicago Jogger Critically Injured by Pit Bulls

A Chicago man was left in critical condition after two pit bull terriers attacked him as he jogged along the city's lakefront Monday morning.

The 62-year-old man was running in the city's South Shore neighborhood at approximately 6 a.m. when the mauling occurred. He sustained bites all over his body, including on his face.

"They were just going after the man like he was a piece of steak," Stanley Lee, who swung a baseball bat at the dogs in hopes to free the jogger, told MyFoxChicago.com. He went on to say the dogs went for the jogger's throat, face and arms, and called the attack was the worst thing he's ever seen.

Police officers found the dogs a short distance away from the site of the attack and fatally shot the animals as they attempted to attack them, department spokesman Officer Robert Perez said.

Neither officer was injured, he said.

Perez said the attack happened on a path in Rainbow Beach Park on the city's far South Side.

Another area resident said she ran outside, as another resident called 911 to help the man after hearing and seeing the attack from their window.

"He was yelling, `Somebody help me, please help me," said Debra Plummer.

"One had the man by his arm and the other had him by his leg and they just had a lock on him (and) they wouldn't let him go," she said. "I couldn't believe what I was looking at."

Ultimately, she said, police pulled their guns and shot the dogs multiple times.

"They had to open fire," she said.

She said one indication of how powerful the dogs were was what happened after they were shot: One ran across a path before it fell and another ran in circles for what seemed like minutes before it, too, finally fell to the ground.

The man was rushed to John H. Stroger Jr. Hospital of Cook County, where a hospital spokeswoman said late Monday morning he remained in critical condition. Police have not released his name.

Perez said officers had not identified the owner or owners of the animals, saying that while the dogs both had collars, neither had tags. He said animal control officers were dispatched to the scene to take the carcasses away.

The dogs were large, heavily muscled male pit bulls. Neither had identification microchips embedded in them and neither had been neutered, according to Cheri Travis, executive director of the city's department of animal care and control. She said the dogs wore identical collars, suggesting they could be owned by the same person.

She said her employees were scouring records to see if there have been any complaints about dogs or reports of any strays in the area.

Perez said officers were canvassing the area in the search of the owners. And Travis said her office was assisting with the search. She said that the owner or owners may face criminal charges, explaining that while the fine for not keeping a dog in a fenced in area or allowing it to run outside without a leash is $300, the owner of an animal that causes serious injury to a person can be fined as much as $10,000 and locked up for as long as six months.

Travis also said part of her office's investigation will be to determine how the dogs were cared for, explaining that dogs do not typically attack people, and when they do it is often after they have been mistreated.

"Dogs don't just attack," she said.

 

[3C's]

Chicago Jogger Critically Injured by Pit Bulls

A Chicago man was left in critical condition after two pit bull terriers attacked him as he jogged along the city's lakefront Monday morning.

The 62-year-old man was running in the city's South Shore neighborhood at approximately 6 a.m. when the mauling occurred. He sustained bites all over his body, including on his face.

"They were just going after the man like he was a piece of steak," Stanley Lee, who swung a baseball bat at the dogs in hopes to free the jogger, told MyFoxChicago.com. He went on to say the dogs went for the jogger's throat, face and arms, and called the attack was the worst thing he's ever seen.

Police officers found the dogs a short distance away from the site of the attack and fatally shot the animals as they attempted to attack them, department spokesman Officer Robert Perez said.

Neither officer was injured, he said.

Perez said the attack happened on a path in Rainbow Beach Park on the city's far South Side.

Another area resident said she ran outside, as another resident called 911 to help the man after hearing and seeing the attack from their window.

"He was yelling, `Somebody help me, please help me," said Debra Plummer.

"One had the man by his arm and the other had him by his leg and they just had a lock on him (and) they wouldn't let him go," she said. "I couldn't believe what I was looking at."

Ultimately, she said, police pulled their guns and shot the dogs multiple times.

"They had to open fire," she said.

She said one indication of how powerful the dogs were was what happened after they were shot: One ran across a path before it fell and another ran in circles for what seemed like minutes before it, too, finally fell to the ground.

The man was rushed to John H. Stroger Jr. Hospital of Cook County, where a hospital spokeswoman said late Monday morning he remained in critical condition. Police have not released his name.

Perez said officers had not identified the owner or owners of the animals, saying that while the dogs both had collars, neither had tags. He said animal control officers were dispatched to the scene to take the carcasses away.

The dogs were large, heavily muscled male pit bulls. Neither had identification microchips embedded in them and neither had been neutered, according to Cheri Travis, executive director of the city's department of animal care and control. She said the dogs wore identical collars, suggesting they could be owned by the same person.

She said her employees were scouring records to see if there have been any complaints about dogs or reports of any strays in the area.

Perez said officers were canvassing the area in the search of the owners. And Travis said her office was assisting with the search. She said that the owner or owners may face criminal charges, explaining that while the fine for not keeping a dog in a fenced in area or allowing it to run outside without a leash is $300, the owner of an animal that causes serious injury to a person can be fined as much as $10,000 and locked up for as long as six months.

Travis also said part of her office's investigation will be to determine how the dogs were cared for, explaining that dogs do not typically attack people, and when they do it is often after they have been mistreated.

"Dogs don't just attack," she said.

there you go

 

[Charlie Frown]

A PIT BULL ATE MY BALLS!

 

[FlapJacks]

They need exercise, attention and affection.

And just sometimes they need the flesh of a 6 year old.

I do find it amusing that the people that are pro pitt bull are the only ones able to hold a rational conversation. It's comments like this that just make you look like a complete tool.

You are taking the position that any dog, ANY dog, if treated properly would not be violent. I don't find this position to be irrational

 

[Chaka]

Last night I watched Nova: Dogs Decoded, available on Netflix streaming. Some very interesting points made in that special.In Hungary they took 5 very young (5 days old) wolf cubs from a wolf sanctuary, and had them raised in homes by students. The students that participated had to raise a puppy previously so they were experienced. The wolf puppies were also raised with other dogs. What they found out was that no matter how much nurturing, when the wolf puppies got older they because uncontrollable. Genetics is a huge factor in behavior.They also spent time talking about the silver fox program in Siberia. Since the 50s, this program has been breeding foxes and only selecting the tamest of the tame (about 1%) to try to "develop" a domesticated fox. After 8 generations of this selective breeding they were able produce foxes that were not only tame, but also had physical changes (ears, color, bone structure). They also breed a group of foxes for aggressiveness. Taking the most aggressive and cross breeding. They ended up "developing" foxes that would try to bite you through a steel cage. When a "tame" fox embryo was implanted into an "aggressive" mother, the kit would be "tame". When a "aggressive" fox embryo was implanted into a "tame" mother, the kit would be "aggressive".It is not all the owner. Genetics has a great deal to do with a dogs behavior.

I thought this was an interesting special and of course genetics has something to do with this (that dogs have always had breed specific characteristics is not a revelation). But it wasn't the foxes who were doing the selective breeding it was the humans. It also points to the fact that the foxes weren't naturally all aggressive or all friendly there was a full spectrum of behavioral characteristics and it wasn't until human intervention that this changed. So again it points to the fact that removing any specific breed won't change a single thing because humans will merely pick another one to selectively breed for whatever characteristic they are looking for.I won't argue that pit bull types aren't being ruined through selective breeding but we need to change the behavior in the humans if we want this to change.

 

[Chaos Commish]

Last night I watched Nova: Dogs Decoded, available on Netflix streaming. Some very interesting points made in that special.

What they found out was that no matter how much nurturing, when the wolf puppies got older they became uncontrollable. Genetics is a huge factor in behavior.

It is not all the owner. Genetics has a great deal to do with a dogs behavior.

Foxes and Wolves are wild animals so drawing conclusions about domestic animals based on those studies is weak. The same is true for wild boars and domestic pork. Dogs and pigs are among the most susceptible to trait selection. The problem with Pitties is several fold. It includes both the breed and the deed, the genetics and the irresponsible owners. The biggest problem is the population. That's why German Shepherds kill something like 8 times more people than Pitties do in Germany. Anyone arguing with this please don't cite AKC registrations as some sort of accurate census of dog breeds. There is no accurate census, but there is a huge overpopulation of Pitties and Chihuahuas in this country because of the huge population of idiot breeders thinking they can make an easy buck.

 

[Charlie Frown]

Woman's Pet Dog Not Insured; Set to be Euthanized

In the state of Ohio, certain dogs are classified as "vicious." State law requires owners of vicious animals to insure them with a $100,000 policy.

PORTSMOUTH, Ohio (WSAZ) -- A dog in Portsmouth has been scheduled to be euthanized because its owner failed to get it properly insured.

In the state of Ohio, certain dogs are classified as "vicious." State law requires owners of vicious animals to insure them with a $100,000 policy. Pit bulls are considered by the state to be vicious.

Click here to find out more!

Animal Control in Portsmouth says the dog in question, a 3-year-old pit bull named Shorty, had attacked a man and his dog who were out taking a walk -- both resulting in injuries.

The next day, animal control says, Shorty escaped from his house and was found in another part of town. They picked up the dog, where it was discovered Shorty was not properly insured.

"The dog could not be properly restrained so it had to be taken to the Scioto County Humane Society," Wendy Payton, with Animal Control, told WSAZ.com. "For public safety, in case the dog is running at large and it bites someone, they're liable for they're actions."

Christine Darby, the dog's owner, was given two months to acquire proper insurance -- but she told WSAZ.com she is on a fixed income and simply can't afford it. She said she didn't know about the law requiring the insurance policy until after she got her dog. By then, he was already like part of the family.

Darby said she had hoped someone who could afford to insure her dog properly would adopt him, but found out that is impossible. Because Shorty is classified as "vicious," he is prohibited from being adopted out.

Shorty is set to be euthanized on Tuesday.

"I respect that I can't afford it, therefore I can't have him, but if they'd just let him live. I just don't want him to die," Darby said. "It's like losing one of my kids. It's killing me."

LINK

 

[gandalas]

The American Staffordshire Terrier was the number one companion dog in this country for generations...

Really?

Still waiting

For?

Citation?

http://www.pamperedpetcare.com/blog/the-most-popular-family-dogs-of-the-early-20th-centuryhttp://www.dontbullymybreed.org/

2nd source may potentially be a little Biased towards Pitbulls, but the first one certainly wouldn't seem to be and it says the same thing.

 

[Charlie Frown]

McDonalds pulls ad after pit bull owner outrage

LOS ANGELES (AP) — McDonald's has apologized and pulled an ad that came back to bite it.

The ad said eating a Chicken McBite was less risky than petting a stray pit bull, shaving your head, naming your son Sue or giving friends your Facebook password. It enraged pit bull owners and their supporters.

 

[eoMMan]

How long until the media calls this attack a pitbull attack too?

http://www.nbc-2.com/story/16892100/2012/02/09/rescued-dog-bites-tv-anchor-during-broadcast

Posted: Feb 09, 2012 6:45 AM EST

Updated: Feb 09, 2012 6:45 AM EST

By STEVEN K. PAULSON

Associated Press

DENVER (AP) - An 85-pound Argentine mastiff dog dramatically rescued a day earlier from an icy lake was impounded Wednesday after viciously biting a Denver television news anchor on her face during a live in-studio segment.

Kyle Dyer was conducting an interview on the rescue of Gladiator Maximus, also known as Max, after the dog fell into a frigid Lakewood lake Tuesday while chasing a coyote. The live segment was aimed at reuniting firefighter Tyler Sugaski, who rescued the animal, and Michael Robinson, the dog's owner.

According to KUSA-TV (http://on9news.tv/wOefIb ), firefighters, paramedics and animal control were called to the station after the attack.

The station later showed video of Dyer petting the dog, but stopped before the attack occurred and said they would not rebroadcast it. Other video posted online showed the dog lunging at Dyer and viciously biting her face.

Meghan Hughes, spokeswoman for the Denver Environmental Health department, said Robinson, 39, of Lakewood was cited with failure to have his dog on a leash, allowing a dog to bite and failure to have a vaccinated dog.

Hughes said the dog is being quarantined until a judge can hold a hearing on the charges and rule on the dog's fate.

Robinson did not return a phone call seeking comment.

Julie Lonborg, spokeswoman for Denver Health hospital, said in a statement that Dyer was in fair condition and being evaluated by a trauma team. The hospital said she was awake and visiting with family.

KUSA news director Patti Dennis said Dyer was doing well after reconstructive surgery on her lip.

"The dog bite accident that happened today at 9News was unfortunate and certainly not expected based on what we knew about the dog and his owner," Dennis wrote on the station's Facebook page. "Our goal was to unite the owner with the rescuer for a nice segment. We are all thinking of Kyle and her recovery."

According to the station, Robinson was taking the dog for a walk without a leash on Tuesday around 5:30 p.m. when the dog spotted a coyote running out of a bush. The dog chased the coyote onto the ice and fell into the freezing water, where the animal spent 20 minutes before firefighters arrived.

Sugaski broke the ice with his arms to get closer to the dog.

"The dog recognized right off that I was there to help, so he came towards me," Sugaski said.

The West Metro Fire Department said Sugaski was unavailable for comment.

Copyright 2012 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

 

[Charlie Frown]

How long until the media calls this attack a pitbull attack too?

http://www.nbc-2.com/story/16892100/2012/02/09/rescued-dog-bites-tv-anchor-during-broadcast

Posted: Feb 09, 2012 6:45 AM EST

Updated: Feb 09, 2012 6:45 AM EST

By STEVEN K. PAULSON

Associated Press

DENVER (AP) - An 85-pound Argentine mastiff dog dramatically rescued a day earlier from an icy lake was impounded Wednesday after viciously biting a Denver television news anchor on her face during a live in-studio segment.

Kyle Dyer was conducting an interview on the rescue of Gladiator Maximus, also known as Max, after the dog fell into a frigid Lakewood lake Tuesday while chasing a coyote. The live segment was aimed at reuniting firefighter Tyler Sugaski, who rescued the animal, and Michael Robinson, the dog's owner.

According to KUSA-TV (http://on9news.tv/wOefIb ), firefighters, paramedics and animal control were called to the station after the attack.

The station later showed video of Dyer petting the dog, but stopped before the attack occurred and said they would not rebroadcast it. Other video posted online showed the dog lunging at Dyer and viciously biting her face.

Meghan Hughes, spokeswoman for the Denver Environmental Health department, said Robinson, 39, of Lakewood was cited with failure to have his dog on a leash, allowing a dog to bite and failure to have a vaccinated dog.

Hughes said the dog is being quarantined until a judge can hold a hearing on the charges and rule on the dog's fate.

Robinson did not return a phone call seeking comment.

Julie Lonborg, spokeswoman for Denver Health hospital, said in a statement that Dyer was in fair condition and being evaluated by a trauma team. The hospital said she was awake and visiting with family.

KUSA news director Patti Dennis said Dyer was doing well after reconstructive surgery on her lip.

"The dog bite accident that happened today at 9News was unfortunate and certainly not expected based on what we knew about the dog and his owner," Dennis wrote on the station's Facebook page. "Our goal was to unite the owner with the rescuer for a nice segment. We are all thinking of Kyle and her recovery."

According to the station, Robinson was taking the dog for a walk without a leash on Tuesday around 5:30 p.m. when the dog spotted a coyote running out of a bush. The dog chased the coyote onto the ice and fell into the freezing water, where the animal spent 20 minutes before firefighters arrived.

Sugaski broke the ice with his arms to get closer to the dog.

"The dog recognized right off that I was there to help, so he came towards me," Sugaski said.

The West Metro Fire Department said Sugaski was unavailable for comment.

Copyright 2012 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

May as well be. Very similar in breeding and appearance.

 

[eoMMan]

How long until the media calls this attack a pitbull attack too?

http://www.nbc-2.com/story/16892100/2012/02/09/rescued-dog-bites-tv-anchor-during-broadcast

Posted: Feb 09, 2012 6:45 AM EST

Updated: Feb 09, 2012 6:45 AM EST

By STEVEN K. PAULSON

Associated Press

DENVER (AP) - An 85-pound Argentine mastiff dog dramatically rescued a day earlier from an icy lake was impounded Wednesday after viciously biting a Denver television news anchor on her face during a live in-studio segment.

Kyle Dyer was conducting an interview on the rescue of Gladiator Maximus, also known as Max, after the dog fell into a frigid Lakewood lake Tuesday while chasing a coyote. The live segment was aimed at reuniting firefighter Tyler Sugaski, who rescued the animal, and Michael Robinson, the dog's owner.

According to KUSA-TV (http://on9news.tv/wOefIb ), firefighters, paramedics and animal control were called to the station after the attack.

The station later showed video of Dyer petting the dog, but stopped before the attack occurred and said they would not rebroadcast it. Other video posted online showed the dog lunging at Dyer and viciously biting her face.

Meghan Hughes, spokeswoman for the Denver Environmental Health department, said Robinson, 39, of Lakewood was cited with failure to have his dog on a leash, allowing a dog to bite and failure to have a vaccinated dog.

Hughes said the dog is being quarantined until a judge can hold a hearing on the charges and rule on the dog's fate.

Robinson did not return a phone call seeking comment.

Julie Lonborg, spokeswoman for Denver Health hospital, said in a statement that Dyer was in fair condition and being evaluated by a trauma team. The hospital said she was awake and visiting with family.

KUSA news director Patti Dennis said Dyer was doing well after reconstructive surgery on her lip.

"The dog bite accident that happened today at 9News was unfortunate and certainly not expected based on what we knew about the dog and his owner," Dennis wrote on the station's Facebook page. "Our goal was to unite the owner with the rescuer for a nice segment. We are all thinking of Kyle and her recovery."

According to the station, Robinson was taking the dog for a walk without a leash on Tuesday around 5:30 p.m. when the dog spotted a coyote running out of a bush. The dog chased the coyote onto the ice and fell into the freezing water, where the animal spent 20 minutes before firefighters arrived.

Sugaski broke the ice with his arms to get closer to the dog.

"The dog recognized right off that I was there to help, so he came towards me," Sugaski said.

The West Metro Fire Department said Sugaski was unavailable for comment.

Copyright 2012 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

May as well be. Very similar in breeding and appearance.

 

[Cliff Clavin]

Video of the "attack" here

Someone should probably tell the woman that you don't put your face inches from a dogs and stare him down. At least she learned her lesson. Hopefully they don't put the dog down.

 

[TexanFan02]

Pit Bulls found inherently dangerous, strict liability attaches.

 

[gianmarco]

Here we go....

 

[Jobber]

Pit Bulls found inherently dangerous, strict liability attaches.

A quote from the article: "All dogs, if you don't train them and show them love, can turn out to be mean animals,” As many others have already mentioned in this very thread, a poorly trained Chihuahua doesn't have the strength chew your balls off. I think it's ridiculous to ban breeds. But I am in agreement that lawsuits and higher homeowner premiums will persuade some to rethink their dog purchase.

 

[Charlie Frown]

Are the going to pay to screen dog's DNA to determine if they are really PBs?

 

[PatsFanCT]

I don't think it's strictly the dog owner vs the dog as to where the blame falls. All animals have a natural instinct to attack, especially if they are protecting their own. Humans included. Even we have to be trained not to hurt others.

The problem with the Pitt is that his massive size and strength results in more deaths than a Shiatsu, and hence more media attention.

Even the best Pitt owners dogs can attack other dogs and humans if they feel they need to be protective. So when a jogger runs by the house, or a neighbor walks down their hall, there's no way of knowing if it's natural instincts are going to kick in.

It's way too easy to say "It's the owner" or "It's the breed". There are certainly truths to both sides, but it's never really that cut and dry.

 

[Clinton]

Pit Bulls found inherently dangerous, strict liability attaches.

Interesting, thanks.I just went on a tangent reading comparable cases and came across this interesting paragraph in the case that banned pit bulls from Toledo, Ohio...

The trial court cited the substantial evidence supporting its conclusion that pit bulls, compared to other breeds, cause a disproportionate amount of danger to people. The chief dog warden of Lucas County testified that:

(1) when pit bulls attack, they are more likely to inflict severe damage to their victim than other breeds of dogs,

(2) pit bulls have killed more Ohioans than any other breed of dog,

(3) Toledo police officers fire their weapons in the line of duty at pit bulls more often than they fire weapons at people and all other breeds of dogs combined, and

(4) pit bulls are frequently shot during drug raids because pit bulls are encountered more frequently in drug raids than any other dog breed. The trial court also found that pit bulls are “found largely in urban settings where there are crowded living conditions and a large number of children present,” which increases the risk of injury caused by pit bulls.

---------------------------------

From: CITY OF TOLEDO, APPELLANT, v. TELLINGS, APPELLEE. [Cite as Toledo v. Tellings, 114 Ohio St.3d 278, 2007-Ohio-3724.]

Dogs – State of Ohio and city of Toledo have a legitimate interest in protecting citizens from the dangers associated with pit bulls — R.C. 955.22 and 955.11(A)(4)(a)(iii) and Toledo Municipal Code 505.14 are rationally related to government’s interest and are constitutional.

http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/docs/pdf/0/2007/2007-ohio-3724.pdf

 

[[icon]]

Pit Bulls found inherently dangerous, strict liability attaches.

It's about time.

 

[TexanFan02]

Pit Bulls found inherently dangerous, strict liability attaches.

It's about time.

Seems like the subtitle to this thread should be changed.

 

[Chaos Commish]

There was this bit of common sense out of Ohio earlier in the year:

Breed no longer will be singled out as 'vicious'

COLUMBUS -- A bill eliminating a 25-year-old Ohio law automatically declaring the "pit bull" to be an inherently vicious dog was overwhelmingly approved by the state House Wednesday and is headed for Gov. John Kasich's signature.

The chamber voted 67-30 to give final approval to House Bill 14 and send it on to the governor, whose office had worked on amendments to the bill in its final stages.

"Today, we have an opportunity to finally be the last state to eliminate our discrimination of breed-specific dogs," said Rep. Barbara Sears (R., Monclova Township), the bill's sponsor. "We can join the other 49 states and virtually every other country in the world in eliminating our breed-specific language."

Ohio's law was enacted in 1987 and no other state has passed such a law or any other discrimination against a "pit bull." But some individual communities nationwide do have regulations regarding dog ownership.

Current Ohio law defines a "vicious dog" as one that, without provocation, has seriously injured a person, killed another dog, or belongs to the general breed of "pit bull."

Such a designation triggers additional liability insurance, restraint, and other requirements, and increases the chances that a "pit bull" could be euthanized if it is picked up on the street.

In addition to dropping any reference to a specific breed of dog from the law, House Bill 14 would redefine current designations of "vicious" and "dangerous" dog, create a third lesser category of "nuisance" dog, create a process for dog owners to appeal law enforcement's labeling of their dogs, and place the burden to prove the classification by clear and convincing evidence on the dog warden.

Ohio's dog law -- and the movement to rework it -- has attracted attention from across the nation.

More in the link.

 

[Chaos Commish]

Are the going to pay to screen dog's DNA to determine if they are really PBs?

I know someone who had to use DNA screening on a boxer (a very bully looking white boxer without the smashed snout) in order to calm down a landlord. I also know that same someone's daughter has a pit bull that is by an order of magnitude safer with babies, kids, other animals including dogs and passing strangers than that scary white boxer that had everyone so worried.

 

[Cliff Clavin]

Idiots.

 

[TexanFan02]

There was this bit of common sense out of Ohio earlier in the year:

Breed no longer will be singled out as 'vicious'

COLUMBUS -- A bill eliminating a 25-year-old Ohio law automatically declaring the "pit bull" to be an inherently vicious dog was overwhelmingly approved by the state House Wednesday and is headed for Gov. John Kasich's signature.

The chamber voted 67-30 to give final approval to House Bill 14 and send it on to the governor, whose office had worked on amendments to the bill in its final stages.

"Today, we have an opportunity to finally be the last state to eliminate our discrimination of breed-specific dogs," said Rep. Barbara Sears (R., Monclova Township), the bill's sponsor. "We can join the other 49 states and virtually every other country in the world in eliminating our breed-specific language."

Ohio's law was enacted in 1987 and no other state has passed such a law or any other discrimination against a "pit bull." But some individual communities nationwide do have regulations regarding dog ownership.

Current Ohio law defines a "vicious dog" as one that, without provocation, has seriously injured a person, killed another dog, or belongs to the general breed of "pit bull."

Such a designation triggers additional liability insurance, restraint, and other requirements, and increases the chances that a "pit bull" could be euthanized if it is picked up on the street.

In addition to dropping any reference to a specific breed of dog from the law, House Bill 14 would redefine current designations of "vicious" and "dangerous" dog, create a third lesser category of "nuisance" dog, create a process for dog owners to appeal law enforcement's labeling of their dogs, and place the burden to prove the classification by clear and convincing evidence on the dog warden.

Ohio's dog law -- and the movement to rework it -- has attracted attention from across the nation.

More in the link.

Dummies. The dog control people went along with it because they increased fees. Next week when a pit bull kills somebody they'll redo it.

 

[Chaka]

Pit Bulls found inherently dangerous, strict liability attaches.

Interesting, thanks.I just went on a tangent reading comparable cases and came across this interesting paragraph in the case that banned pit bulls from Toledo, Ohio...

The trial court cited the substantial evidence supporting its conclusion that pit bulls, compared to other breeds, cause a disproportionate amount of danger to people. The chief dog warden of Lucas County testified that:

(1) when pit bulls attack, they are more likely to inflict severe damage to their victim than other breeds of dogs,

(2) pit bulls have killed more Ohioans than any other breed of dog,

(3) Toledo police officers fire their weapons in the line of duty at pit bulls more often than they fire weapons at people and all other breeds of dogs combined, and

(4) pit bulls are frequently shot during drug raids because pit bulls are encountered more frequently in drug raids than any other dog breed. The trial court also found that pit bulls are "found largely in urban settings where there are crowded living conditions and a large number of children present," which increases the risk of injury caused by pit bulls.

---------------------------------

From: CITY OF TOLEDO, APPELLANT, v. TELLINGS, APPELLEE. [Cite as Toledo v. Tellings, 114 Ohio St.3d 278, 2007-Ohio-3724.]

Dogs – State of Ohio and city of Toledo have a legitimate interest in protecting citizens from the dangers associated with pit bulls — R.C. 955.22 and 955.11(A)(4)(a)(iii) and Toledo Municipal Code 505.14 are rationally related to government's interest and are constitutional.

http://www.sconet.st...7-ohio-3724.pdf

Just want to point out that #4 directly contributes to #2 & #3. Some would argue that it's a primary driver.

 

[modogg]

Pit Bulls found inherently dangerous, strict liability attaches.

i like the video at the bottom of the story with the 81-year old lady who fought off the pitbull attack with hand sanitizer. i'm pretty sure if the dogs were really that vicious and deadly an 81-year old lady would need more than hand sanitizer to fend off this dog attack

 

[[icon]]

Pit Bulls found inherently dangerous, strict liability attaches.

Interesting, thanks.I just went on a tangent reading comparable cases and came across this interesting paragraph in the case that banned pit bulls from Toledo, Ohio...

The trial court cited the substantial evidence supporting its conclusion that pit bulls, compared to other breeds, cause a disproportionate amount of danger to people. The chief dog warden of Lucas County testified that:

(1) when pit bulls attack, they are more likely to inflict severe damage to their victim than other breeds of dogs,

(2) pit bulls have killed more Ohioans than any other breed of dog,

(3) Toledo police officers fire their weapons in the line of duty at pit bulls more often than they fire weapons at people and all other breeds of dogs combined, and

(4) pit bulls are frequently shot during drug raids because pit bulls are encountered more frequently in drug raids than any other dog breed. The trial court also found that pit bulls are "found largely in urban settings where there are crowded living conditions and a large number of children present," which increases the risk of injury caused by pit bulls.

---------------------------------

From: CITY OF TOLEDO, APPELLANT, v. TELLINGS, APPELLEE. [Cite as Toledo v. Tellings, 114 Ohio St.3d 278, 2007-Ohio-3724.]

Dogs – State of Ohio and city of Toledo have a legitimate interest in protecting citizens from the dangers associated with pit bulls — R.C. 955.22 and 955.11(A)(4)(a)(iii) and Toledo Municipal Code 505.14 are rationally related to government's interest and are constitutional.

http://www.sconet.st...7-ohio-3724.pdf

Just want to point out that #4 directly contributes to #2 & #3. Some would argue that it's a primary driver.

Cool. Kill all the Pitts until it stops becoming the official breed of dumba##es

 

[Chaka]

Pit Bulls found inherently dangerous, strict liability attaches.

Interesting, thanks.I just went on a tangent reading comparable cases and came across this interesting paragraph in the case that banned pit bulls from Toledo, Ohio...

The trial court cited the substantial evidence supporting its conclusion that pit bulls, compared to other breeds, cause a disproportionate amount of danger to people. The chief dog warden of Lucas County testified that:

(1) when pit bulls attack, they are more likely to inflict severe damage to their victim than other breeds of dogs,

(2) pit bulls have killed more Ohioans than any other breed of dog,

(3) Toledo police officers fire their weapons in the line of duty at pit bulls more often than they fire weapons at people and all other breeds of dogs combined, and

(4) pit bulls are frequently shot during drug raids because pit bulls are encountered more frequently in drug raids than any other dog breed. The trial court also found that pit bulls are "found largely in urban settings where there are crowded living conditions and a large number of children present," which increases the risk of injury caused by pit bulls.

---------------------------------

From: CITY OF TOLEDO, APPELLANT, v. TELLINGS, APPELLEE. [Cite as Toledo v. Tellings, 114 Ohio St.3d 278, 2007-Ohio-3724.]

Dogs – State of Ohio and city of Toledo have a legitimate interest in protecting citizens from the dangers associated with pit bulls — R.C. 955.22 and 955.11(A)(4)(a)(iii) and Toledo Municipal Code 505.14 are rationally related to government's interest and are constitutional.

http://www.sconet.st...7-ohio-3724.pdf

Just want to point out that #4 directly contributes to #2 & #3. Some would argue that it's a primary driver.

Cool. Kill all the Pitts until it stops becoming the official breed of dumba##es

Cool. After their all gone we can televise the elections for the next official breed of dumb###es. We'll make millions.

 

[TexanFan02]

Pit Bulls found inherently dangerous, strict liability attaches.

Interesting, thanks.I just went on a tangent reading comparable cases and came across this interesting paragraph in the case that banned pit bulls from Toledo, Ohio...

The trial court cited the substantial evidence supporting its conclusion that pit bulls, compared to other breeds, cause a disproportionate amount of danger to people. The chief dog warden of Lucas County testified that:

(1) when pit bulls attack, they are more likely to inflict severe damage to their victim than other breeds of dogs,

(2) pit bulls have killed more Ohioans than any other breed of dog,

(3) Toledo police officers fire their weapons in the line of duty at pit bulls more often than they fire weapons at people and all other breeds of dogs combined, and

(4) pit bulls are frequently shot during drug raids because pit bulls are encountered more frequently in drug raids than any other dog breed. The trial court also found that pit bulls are "found largely in urban settings where there are crowded living conditions and a large number of children present," which increases the risk of injury caused by pit bulls.

---------------------------------

From: CITY OF TOLEDO, APPELLANT, v. TELLINGS, APPELLEE. [Cite as Toledo v. Tellings, 114 Ohio St.3d 278, 2007-Ohio-3724.]

Dogs – State of Ohio and city of Toledo have a legitimate interest in protecting citizens from the dangers associated with pit bulls — R.C. 955.22 and 955.11(A)(4)(a)(iii) and Toledo Municipal Code 505.14 are rationally related to government's interest and are constitutional.

http://www.sconet.st...7-ohio-3724.pdf

Just want to point out that #4 directly contributes to #2 & #3. Some would argue that it's a primary driver.

Cool. Kill all the Pitts until it stops becoming the official breed of dumba##es

 

[ren hoek]

Yeah, cops should indiscriminately shoot Pit Bulls that never harmed anyone in their life. That makes sense.

 

[Chaka]

FTR I agree with the fact that there is a Pit Bull problem, but I am still waiting to hear a legitimate solution.