Friday, January 18, 2008
Minneapolis, IN - Paula Ybarra-Provost was attacked last spring by two dogs owned by her neighbor while inside her neighbor's home. She recently underwent a "first time" medical procedure, which involved placing a stent in her neck to heal an artery that had been torn in the attack.
Paula's attack and several others prompted a response from enforcement officials. A key provision would forbid dog ownership for five years to owners who don't comply with the new rules. The ordinance would also make it more difficult for a violent felon to keep a dog that weighs more than 20 pounds or poses a danger if mistreated.
The dogs that attacked Paula had been declared "dangerous" after attacking a 7-year old less than one-year prior. Yet, the city did not follow up to see whether Mohrbacker, the owner of the dogs, had complied with the dangerous dog requirements, which include insurance, special confinement and other steps.
The new ordinance ensures stronger follow up procedures to catch dog owners like Mohrbacker, who fail to comply with dangerous dog requirements, and as a result lose the right to own dogs for five years. As it stands, Mohrbacker pleaded guilty to one of three misdemeanor charges against him, was charged $125 and given a three-month workhouse sentence stayed for a year.
01/12/08: New Type of Surgery Used For Dog Attack Victim
Please donate to support our work
DogsBite.org is a 501(c)(3) tax-exempt public charity organization. Learn more »
| 1/19/2008 4:19 PM |
For those who continue to insist..."Its not the breed, it's the owner"; what do we do when a particular breed attracts the worst type of dog owner? That is the "pitbull paradox". The types of people who would be good pit bull owners...responsible, mature, intelligent people who have advanced dog handling skills, who research dog breeds before buying, buy only from responsible hobby breeders,who are looking for a loving family pet and not an image booster,a cheap burglar alarm, or an animal to fill an emotional void in their lives.....these people don't want them. Why would they? With so many other dogs more suitable for a family pet than a pit bull, there is no reason to own one.
Responsible onwers don't want to deal with the liability, they don't want to frighten and intimidate family,friends, and neighbors by owning a muscle dog with a fierce reputation, they don't want to deal with the high levels of dog aggression, or the needle-in-a-haystack search for a "responsible" APBT breeder.
That's the real problem with the breed...the types of people who own and breed them, for all the wrong reasons.
| 8/26/2008 1:27 PM |
As a life-long dog-lover myself, I struggle with the "breed or owner" paradox myself. Until my 9-week old puppy and I were attacked by an unleashed and unattended pit bull in my front yard this summer. Not two months later, my dog was attacked (and yes, I do know the difference between playing and aggression) by a pit bull that shouldn't have been at the St. Anthony Pkwy dog park.
I'm sick of being afraid in my own neighborhood because the City of Minneapolis doesn't keep up with or punish severely enough the dog owners who own dangerous dogs.
| 3/01/2010 9:03 PM |
I was attacked by a Pit Bull last year. The dog was CLEARLY trained to go for my neck! The owners knew better than to have their dog on a busy sidewalk.
I'm not big on suing people, but with so many people using a dog as a security system there needs to be a culture of them understanding the responsibility that comes with that. At least thats what I told myself when we sued the SOBs!
This guy is super nice and handles dog bites: