Sunday, June 22, 2008


Donate to DogsBite.org
Please donate to support our work

DogsBite.org is a 501(c)(3) tax-exempt public charity organization. Learn more »


posted by   |  permalink  |  11 comments  | email  |icon blog rss  |icon comment rss 

11 comments:

Anonymous Doug  |  6/22/2008 4:06 PM  |  Flag  
The fact is that even pit owners can't stop attacks and a leash does little to prevent disasters.

Here's a video of a pit bull owner with a leashed pit bull reacting to her dog attacking. (graphic audio, a pet cat dies - owner, dog and cat visable at end) http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=22a_1213702864

Anonymous Anonymous  |  6/22/2008 7:32 PM  |  Flag  
Seems like this Pit Owner is enabled by the pit-sympathethic rescue angels at the SPCA.... The irony is, if someone was abusing Pit bulls, the SPCA would aggressively pursue a lengthy prison sentence for the individual. They view this pit nutter killing other people's pets as "just dogs being dogs".

Anonymous Trigger  |  6/22/2008 8:55 PM  |  Flag  
Bingo! You nailed it!

Anonymous Anonymous  |  6/23/2008 5:19 AM  |  Flag  
On April 4, there was an attack in Surrey with four pitbulls attacking some Pomeranians,” Chortyk said. “We traced the plate and it turned up as this fellow.”

Try this...Name the dog killin' perp before he kills again....Sheesh!!

Anonymous Anonymous  |  6/23/2008 6:03 AM  |  Flag  
You know you and your dog are having a bad day when you hear a Pit Bull owner scream the words:


"Pick up your Dog!!!"

Anonymous Anonymous  |  6/23/2008 8:42 AM  |  Flag  
You would think the SPCA would take this opportunity to caution PIT BULL OWNERS on the dog aggressive tendancies of the breed, but no, they caution the rest of us that our pets might die if we meet up with a pit bull while minding our own business. So there is no education here, nothing will change, and it becomes permissable for people to live in fear for the benefit of pit bulls. The end of the article says it all:

*The SPCA is looking into whether recommending a criminal-negligence charge is appropriate in Thursday’s incident. They must first locate the man and dogs, prove they were involved and prove the owner knew his dogs posed a danger. “If we can prove... he had previous knowledge his dogs were dangerous and did nothing, there actually can be criminal charges laid,” Chortyk said.*

The man knows he had a pit bull, that should be good enough. The man took off and is hiding, so he knows he did something wrong. What else is there to prove?

“People need to take ownership and responsibility for their pets,” Deanne Evans said. “If it was my dog that did this, she wouldn’t be standing here. She’s my life – but she’d be put down in a heartbeat.” Perfect example of the normal pet owner - notice many pit bull owners leave the scene of the crime, or make such statements as if BSL comes to my town I won't adhere to the rules. I've even talked to one woman online that said, more than once, if her pit bull ever did something like this, she would immediately flee the state with her dog and start over, that no one would put her dog down. They can kill your dog, but you can't even look at theirs funny without them attacking you for it.

Anonymous Jersey  |  6/23/2008 8:46 AM  |  Flag  
http://news.aol.ca/article/Dog-Owner-Issues-Warning-After-Attack/264324/

Check out the poll numbers.

Anonymous Anonymous  |  6/23/2008 8:51 AM  |  Flag  
Absolutely.....the greatest irony is that the pit-lobby repeatedly rails against anyone who does not like pit bulls as "breedist", and calls even reasonable breeding regulations as "discrimination". But spend some time in the dog chat forums and message boards...especially the pit bull boards...and read the comments made under news articles where a pit bull has killed another dog...the the truth is apparent.

Pit bull owners HATE small dogs...especially toy breeds. Most pit bull owners seem to feel that a small, leashed dog killed by an off leash pit bull "probably provoked" the pit bull, and therefore deserved it. There is no sympathy from pit bull owners for the dogs killed by pit bulls. None. If the owner of a small dog being mauled by a pit bull gets hurt in the process, they are blamed for "getting into the middle of a dog fight".

I am a veteran of dog message boards and discussion forums, and have participated in various popular ones for many years. Most I have left because of the pit bull fanatics. Many seem to exist outside the mainstream of society, and have views that are not consistent with the average person. Many seem to actively dislike children...or at least not value human life the way normal people do. They feel that a few dead children is a small price to pay for the ability to own pit bull type dogs. They have no sympathy for the animal victims of pit bulls, which makes perfect sense; most people don't want a dog that wants to kill other domesticated animals.

They constantly cry that they are "victims" of bias, then spew venom about "poodles", "chihuahuas" "cocker spaniels", etc. They are hypocrits, misanthrops, and worse. Civilized society should stop pandering to them.

Anonymous Anonymous  |  6/23/2008 8:56 AM  |  Flag  
2 more stories of pits attacking, owners no where around

http://www.ny1.com/ny1/content/index.jsp?stid=10&aid=82913

http://www.sacbee.com/101/story/1028895.html

Read the comments on the second one - one pit bull owner puts forth that the little dog started it and therefore the pit is innocent. And of course, if you don't agree with her you are ignorant.

Anonymous Anonymous  |  6/23/2008 4:39 PM  |  Flag  
The entire Pit Bull Culture has been about nothing but cruelty and suffering for over two centuries.

Anonymous KoryNDenver  |  8/28/2008 12:58 PM  |  Flag  
The distinction between a pit bull ban and generic "dangerous dog laws" that focuses on punishing "irresponsible owners" is this: A pit bull ban prevents the pit bull from being in the community in the first place - thus, no attack takes place. The alternative is a silly concept where the logical deterrent effect of potential criminal penalties is somehow expected to cause "irresponsible" owners to modify their management techniques with their pit bull. However, is it not true that the more "irresponsible" a person might be, the more likely they would be to ignore just such a rational cost/benefit analysis? Gang members, drug dealers, and dog fighters already do this, and they continue their illegal acitivity. So, at the end of the day, the very people who are most likely to own a dangerous pit bull and allow it to run at large are the same people who don't care what the law states. This means that while ordinary innocent citizens conduct their affairs under the presumption that other citizens do likewise, they will leave themselves, their children, and their domesticated pets as open and vulnerable victims for pit bull attacks. These dangerous dog laws only provide a REACTIVE response that does not prevent the most likely pit bull mauling.

Is your child's life worth giving dog owners the privilege of keeping the breed of their choice in your community until AFTER it attacks?

This reminds me of the liberals who believe terrorists, such as the al-Quada members in Guantanamo Bay should be handled like normal criminals instead of armed combatants. So there is no need to beef up our border security - let anyone who wants into the country come accross. Heck, if they bring in a small suitcase nuclear weapon to blow up New York, we'll just read them their Miranda rights after the mushroom cloud clears.

No thanks, I prefer 100% effective prevention over the hope of deterrence as to such irresponsible pit bull owners.

Post a Comment »

archives: