Sunday, June 22, 2008
Surrey, BC - Police and SPCA officials are investigating a horrific dog attack that left a Bishon Frise broken and battered. The dog's owners, Wayne and Judy Evans, say they want the owner held accountable. BC SPCA’s Lorie Chortyk is advising caution, noting neither the three pit bulls nor their owner have been located.
This cautionary advisement is a change of tune from Chortyk.Last year, after an adopted pit bull attacked it's owner, Chortyk recklessly said that the attack "shouldn't dissuade people from adopting or fostering pit bulls." She went on to whitewash the incident by adding that the attack was merely a "pack mentality" attack, even though the police officer only shot and killed the pit bull. The other "attacking" dogs were left untouched.
Unfortunately, she wasn’t fast enough. The pit bull got to her dog and two more pit bulls rushed in afterward. Evans said that the man did try to call off the dogs, and got physically into the fray, but to no avail. As usual, the pit bull owner did not wait around to see if everyone was okay. Evans’ fingers were bitten in the attack; she was knocked over in the struggle too.
In more evidence that Surrey officials can't do their job too well, Chortyk said the SPCA is working with the RCMP to locate the dogs and owner. She said a license plate noted at the scene has been traced to a man whose pit bulls were reportedly involved in an attack in Victoria; the same plate was also linked to a less-serious incident in Surrey back in April.
Chortyk said the SPCA has been trying unsuccessfully to locate the man since April. She added that the RCMP has advised them not to approach the man, but to contact police once he is found. It is the SPCA’s role to take dogs involved in such incidents into custody. It is up to the city to decide if euthanization is in the community’s best interest, or if restrictions such as muzzling is needed.
The SPCA is looking into whether recommending a criminal-negligence charge is appropriate in the recent 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.
Fat chance Chortyk, officials can't even find the man. If the man is found there will be no way to prove the dogs stuffed into his car are the same dogs that attacked multiple times. Arcane dog laws work in the interest of pit bull owners, not in the interest of public safety. Pit bull owners consistently abuse these laws and endlessly draw on taxpayer's money in the process.
Does everyone understand the logic of a pit bull ban?Most bans allow for immediate seizure of the dog if it is unregistered or has attacked. Officials do not have to prove "if" this or "if" that or "if" this and that -- nonsense laws. This pit bull owner is a perfect example of why Surrey needs a pit bull ban. His dogs are a perfect example why the genetic trait of animal-aggression in pit bulls is absolutely unacceptable.
05/30/08: Flashback: Surrey SPCA Has History of Troubling Attitude
05/25/08: Bajwa Family Plans to Sue the City of Surrey, the SPCA and RCMP
05/13/08: Pit Bull Attacks Seeing Guide Dog in Surrey
Please donate to support our work
DogsBite.org is a 501(c)(3) tax-exempt public charity organization. Learn more »
| 6/22/2008 4:06 PM |
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
| 6/22/2008 7:32 PM |
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".
| 6/23/2008 5:19 AM |
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!!
| 6/23/2008 8:42 AM |
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.
| 6/23/2008 8:51 AM |
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.
| 6/23/2008 8:56 AM |
2 more stories of pits attacking, owners no where around
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.
| 8/28/2008 12:58 PM |
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.