Wednesday, January 21, 2009


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  |  24 comments  | email  |icon blog rss  |icon comment rss 

24 comments:

Anonymous Don  |  1/20/2009 3:23 PM  |  Flag  
I got money on a pit bull mix.
Any other breed they would say, Sheperd mix, or Lab mix or Rottweiler mix.....pit bulls seem to be routinely categorized as "mixed breed". Pressure to cover up these attacks is significant.

Anonymous annod  |  1/20/2009 3:48 PM  |  Flag  
A quick peak at the Petfinder link tells me that I want to go PA to adopt my next dog. I found ONLY TWO of those ugly pit bulls on the first two pages.
(Love seeing all of those collies!!)
50% of the dogs in the shelters in the greater Seattle area are those freakishly ugly pit fighters. No wonder our shelters are in crisis.

Anonymous Anonymous  |  1/20/2009 3:59 PM  |  Flag  
This WAS a chained dog

Chaining is one way that people excuse or cover keeping aggressive dogs. They can't have it in the house, so they throw it on a chain 24/7 and things like this happen

And the dog fighters routinely chain dogs

This is why anti-chaining laws are getting passed

Anonymous Anonymous  |  1/20/2009 4:00 PM  |  Flag  
Any way to do a little investigative work and find out what this is?

Bet the neighbors are more than happy to divulge what breed this is!

Anonymous Anonymous  |  1/20/2009 4:02 PM  |  Flag  
What kind of psychopath would be chaining a dog outside in the cold weather that has been hitting the East Coast?

Anonymous Anonymous  |  1/20/2009 7:06 PM  |  Flag  
The paradox presented to the pit bull activists when a child is killed by a chained pit bull is this...in order to deny breed played a role, the rescue angels will claim the attack occured because the dog was chained. So why don't the pro-pit organizations advocate anti-chaining laws? Because it would impact the breeders and dogfighters.

Pit bulls can chew through chain link kennels, and climb 8 ft fences. The cheapest, easiest, most secure way to maintain a "yard" of fighting dogs is on heavy chains. Pit Bull Princess Diane Jessup advocates the chaining of these dogs. So, you have pit bull "experts" like Jessup, who are worshipped in the pit bull community, and all the breeders and dog fighters who are funding these anti-BSL propaganda websites adamantly opposed to anti-chaining laws.

So what argument is left? Usually the mauling is blamed on the parent or guardian who "failed to supervise their child". For the public, its a lose-lose proposition....even IF anti-chaining laws were passed, the inability to keep aggressive pit bulls contained through normal means...they are notorious for climbing or breaking through fencing.....would only increase the danger these dogs pose to the public.

Anonymous Anonymous  |  1/21/2009 8:38 AM  |  Flag  
Many Pa shelters do not adopt out pit bulls for liability reasons, which may explain the Petfinder numbers. Also, PA is home of the town that passed a very interesting law that legislates any breed of that does the majority of attacking/bites in a year. And we can all guess with breed that was.

Anonymous Anonymous  |  1/21/2009 10:29 AM  |  Flag  
Reading the article today stated that the dog was part Rottweiler.

Anonymous Anonymous  |  1/21/2009 4:06 PM  |  Flag  
That Reading PA law was overturned in court after the pit nutters sued. PA has a preemptive Anti-BSL statute.

Btw...the Reading law greatly reduced pit bull bites, but the promaulers won.

Anonymous Anonymous  |  1/21/2009 9:34 PM  |  Flag  
An earlier article says that the owner has multiple chained dogs. So which child will be next?

These rural Pa counties have notoriously corrupt legislators and law enforcement. Farming interests have big pull, and the farmers say they can do anything they want to animals, which is why the Amish run so many puppy mills there

Very close, very interrelated

Many of the cops, prosecutors, judges themselves in these rural Pa areas are backwards hicks who have aggressive dogs, chained dogs, and worse

I believe one of the judges in Pa let a chained dog die in the cold, didn't even get a ticket

It is like the land of look behind in much of Pa, an uncivilized place that is a holdover from long ago and the foxes are guarding the henhouse

It is changing some as there is more development and "outsiders" coming in, but the knuckle-draggers are trying to protect their own

So no surprise this thug who set up this situation and in essence killed this girl will be protected

Anonymous Anonymous  |  1/21/2009 9:57 PM  |  Flag  
Michael Vick took family pets and put them in ring with his pit bulls to watch the pets get killed

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/football/nfl/2008-11-22-vick-usda-report_N.htm#Close

Anonymous Felony  |  1/21/2009 10:57 PM  |  Flag  
" The owner of the dog, William Renda, said he only became concerned after the dog stopped barking"


What planet is this guy from? I am sure his neighbors wish that he would return to it.

Anonymous Anonymous  |  1/22/2009 3:49 AM  |  Flag  
Hmmm...After zero Rotticides in 2008, 2009 starts off with three in 3 weeks.

Anonymous Anonymous  |  1/22/2009 4:01 AM  |  Flag  
"It's crazy. Who would have a dog who would kill someone?" said Bill Scott, a contractor from Hanover who was renovating a home near Renda's residence

Zactly!!

Anonymous Anonymous  |  1/22/2009 10:32 AM  |  Flag  
Petfinder postings are sometimes falsified by rescue groups to mislead adopters as to the dogs breed. Any pit bull that is mostly black will no doubt be referred to as a "lab-mix" by many rescue groups.

I think the humane movement is in a downward spiral in many parts of the country. The real tragedy is that responsible dog owners, who would give a rescue dog a great home, are avoiding shelters because the perception is that so many rescue dogs have serious temperament problems, its not worth the risk. On a personal level, I have met a staggering number of "rescue" dogs in my community with serious aggression problems over the last decade. I have made a decision that I will never adopt a dog from any Massachusetts area shelter, and would only aquire a dog from a reputable hobby breeder, or a breed specific rescue group that carefully screens dogs and places only dogs with solid temperaments, (like Yankee Golden Retreiver rescue)

Shelters and all-breed rescues are currently seen by many experienced dog lovers as not a good place to get a dog, because so few of these organizations will be honest with potential adopters about the dogs...or the employees simply have no understanding about temperament, breed, training, etc. The no-kill movement has resulted in rescues and shelters trying hard to place aggressive dogs with families; when these dogs come into our neighborhoods, its our children and dogs who are ultimately put at risk.

The end result is that the best possible dog owners are avoiding area shelters, while the least responsible, least knowledgable people (who,coincidentally, would be turned away by responsible breeders)end up being the ones adopting the dogs that need dedicated, experienced handlers. Everyone loses, as a result.

Anonymous Jersey  |  1/22/2009 11:17 AM  |  Flag  
http://www.mothersagainstdogchaining.org/attacks.html

At first glance, great idea. Then they have to ruin it by being pit bull apologists. Do you think it ever occurs to them that pit bulls are killing and hurting more kids than chained dogs of all breeds? Does it occur to them that the reason so many pit bull are chained is because its standard dog fighting protocal? And to believe pits are great because the KC blogger says so, it just makes me wonder about people.

Anonymous Anonymous  |  1/22/2009 4:32 PM  |  Flag  
Sorry, anonymous from Massachusetts, but your information is right from the duplicitous "reputable hobby breeders" (AKC people) who right now are lobbying to support dog fighters and opposing bsl. And breeding pit bulls, Rottweilers, Akitas, and other aggressive breeds to make money!

This dog aggression problem originates with breeders and the breeding industry!

Many many animal shelters and rescues DO NOT accept nor place pit bulls, pit bull mixes, nor other aggressive breeds.

In fact, most shelters in Massachusetts DO NOT deal with pit bulls and the like, and aren't fibbing about the breed.

It is just some, particularly shelters that have been infected with the Winograd Best Friends issues. But those are not nearly the majority of shelters and rescues!

Many people in the humane community are disgusted by the Best Friends agenda, and want no part of it.

Purebred dogs from your "hobby breeder" friends are riddled with health and behavior problems (despite all their empty claims about "testing")

Aggression is quite common in many of these breeds from "reputable breeders" and "show breeders."

There is a Massachusetts "reputable hobby breeder" who is selling aggressive terriers right now. Knows her dogs have a problem, keeps right on breeding and selling these dogs to unwitting buyers.

But these "reputable hobby breeders" constantly declare that they have the right to breed and sell aggressive dogs, and quite a few of them are in Massachusetts as well as other states.

Your implication that purebred dogs are somehow superior to mixed breed is not only NOT TRUE, the opposite is the case.

Purebred dogs are a mess! And aggression is part of that mess.

And there is no such thing as a "reputable hobby breeder."

The AKC and "reputable hobby breeders" not only cover up the problems with their dogs (and the AKC puppy mill business), but they are one of the primary opponents of bsl and laws to govern dangerous dogs that could decrease attacks.

Those breeders are spending huge amounts of money and time enabling those among them who breed aggressive breeds.

In Massachusetts, "reputable hobby breeders" tried to get a law passed that let aggressive dogs bite multiple times with no punishment, and would let them wipe their dogs' records clean after a time!

"Reputable hobby breeders" routinely lie about the fact that they sell aggressive & genetically defective dogs in the hopes of appearing superior, as you have somehow been led to believe.

The dog breeding world has many secrets that they keep well-hidden from the public.

(And as for Yankee Golden Retriever Rescue, perhaps you are unaware of the issues that they have had. Breed rescues can be among the WORST when it comes to placing dogs that should not be placed. The obsession with importance of a breed has overruled good sense far too many times)

But it is also true that the AKC community has tried to malign shelter dogs to boost sales of their "product," and unfortunately I hear some of that propaganda in your post.

Anonymous Anonymous  |  1/22/2009 4:41 PM  |  Flag  
And "responsible dog owners" (a lot of AKC breeders with others) are all busy forming "responsible dog owner" groups to protect aggressive dogs and the breeders who breed them!

Or holding "responsible dog owner days" (AKC sponsored) to oppose bsl and protect dangerous dog breeds. In fact, to oppose all laws applying to dogs in general.

It is also no coincidence that a former board member of AKC (supposedly the AKC of "reputable hobby breeders") owns and runs the UKC.

The "reputable hobby breeder" world is a farce and an illusion, and many people are getting shafted by those breeders every day, as well as getting bitten by dogs from "reputable hobby breeders."

And by the way, many of these dog fighters call themselves "reputable hobby breeders"

Anonymous Dude I Bagged Ur Pit  |  1/23/2009 2:58 AM  |  Flag  
"Your implication that purebred dogs are somehow superior to mixed breed is not only NOT TRUE, the opposite is the case." ....... "But it is also true that the AKC community has tried to malign shelter dogs to boost sales of their "product," and unfortunately I hear some of that propaganda in your post."

My experience was very much like what the Mass. commenter described. I tried not one, but two different dogs from our local shelter, and they both had serious behavior issues that were never represented by the shelter. (Many, many, many dogs wind up at the shelter for a reason!) Both dogs were returned to the shelter and I ultimately PURCHASED a healthy, balanced genius of a purebred from someone that might be described as one of these awful "hobby breeders." I love the dog, so sue me.

As for mixed breeds being superior?

Why does Guide Dogs for the Blind run their own breeding program? Isn't it because of the specificity of heritable traits within developed lines? If not, why don't they just use these superior mixed breeds?

Please list all the mixed breeds that EVER won ANY of the open gun dog stakes. If mixed breeds are superior, there must be thousands. But I ask that you show me just one.

At the end of the day, I hate to see this blog hijacked with irrelevant divisive opinion. It has nothing to do with the legislative work needed to address the pit bull problem. The reply to the above commentor wasn’t even directed to me, but it was broad enough that it was sufficiently alienating.

The issue, as I understand it, is addressing dangerous breeds in order of incidence. Opposing all of AKC is a losing proposition. Opposing all breeders rather than breeders of dangerous dogs (pit bulls) is pointless. (And no, I’m not a breeder. I’ve never sold a dog in my life!)

“The purebred dog world is at the heart of dangerous dog issues.”

Get real. Pit bulls are at the heart of the dangerous dog issue. Granny’s two AKC litters of pom-poms can’t muster jack squat on the relevance scale. I don’t see any reason to be disparaging towards someone because of some totally extraneous suspicion. It’s rude and indicative of “bad breeding.”

Blogger bitbypit  |  1/23/2009 3:46 AM  |  Flag  
We have struck a cord here, we've got comments flowing in and we're trying to deal with them. There appear to be 2 issues at stake:

1.) Is the Massachusetts comment AUTHENTIC or is it the representation of "pure breed" propaganda? (As a note to Dude I Bagged UR Pit, the response, which we have not yet published, contained some very key propaganda points, such as "What you advocate is the extinction of ALL dogs")

2.) That said, the Massachusetts comment and the Dude I Bagged UR Pit directly addresses what well-meaning shelter adopters often face when they walk into a shelter. They face many pits and their mixes and dogs with behavioral problems.

This thread is dedicated to a fatality victim and her family and these issues are not necessarily related to it. DogsBite.org needs a new blog post just dedicated to this issue. In this new thread, we can better address these issues.

We ask that the Massachusetts commenter and Dude I Bagged UR Pit write back (in just a few sentences) about the most IMPORTANT aspects of this issue that our new blog post should include.

Anonymous Anonymous  |  1/23/2009 4:12 AM  |  Flag  
8-year old Brianna Shanor was killed by a rottweiler on a 15-20 foot chain after only living at the home for about two weeks. It was DARK when she told Renda she wanted to "go back to the house." There were NO WITNESSES to the fatal attack. But the dog owner AND authorities immediately blamed the child for the attack. Perhaps, in the dark, she did not know the property well? Perhaps, in the dark, she came in contact with the radius of the chained dog? It was reported that she was cold and wanted to go back to the house. Maybe she did walk into the "converted" trailer/dog house as a way to get out of the cold. Do you think she expected to be killed by doing so? Where was William Renda in all of this?

Feeding the chickens...

At some point, he thought something was "weird" because the dog stopped barking. Only then did he check the trailer -- he did NOT check the trailer for the safety of the child, but for the dog's sake. This is a very tragic case, made all the more tragic that authorities will not charge the dog owner because the animal was "restrained" AKA chained!

William Renda ought to be 100% liable for the death of this child. Just as he would be if he left a loaded gun in the child's bedroom.

Anonymous Anonymous  |  1/23/2009 11:58 AM  |  Flag  
"Why does Guide Dogs for the Blind run their own breeding program"

Because breeders are making large amounts of money breeding these dogs and getting a fee from this wealthy charity. There has been much negative discussion about this issue in many places, and many of these dogs wash out of the program.

And all those "open gun dog stakes" breeders are very aggressive about opposing bsl and any breeder regulation for that matter. The hunting dog breeders are among the most active at lobbying against sane laws for dogs.

As for breeds, there are many "reputable breeders" breeding and selling aggressive Rottweilers, Akitas, and even breeds not suspected, but aggressive because their breeding isn't as great as claimed.

Breeders do play a role in this, just as some shelters do.

But tarring all shelter dogs as "inferior" is not fair, not accurate, and right out of the breeder lobbier playbook.

And the majority of AKC breeders are very actively lobbying to support pit bull breeders and oppose bsl! One only needs to read an AKC legislative alert to realize that.

"Please list all the mixed breeds that EVER won ANY of the open gun dog stakes." Pit bull breeders say the same thing about their game dogs, and why they should be allowed to keep breeding game dogs.

Anonymous Dude I Bagged Ur Pit  |  1/23/2009 11:21 PM  |  Flag  
My point is that these broad rants are not helpful and have sufficient potential to do more harm than good. My interest in DBO is a perspective likely shared by many, in that it is limited to the practical matter of particularly dangerous breeds and public safety. If that issue is broadened to disparage every peripheral aspect of the dog world, then all the "slippery slope" arguments will find their footing. It has begun to sound like PETA, where a broad brush supplants accuracy, injures credibility, and is summarily dismissed by the people needed to effect change.

I, for one, have little interest in being battered by some ‘anonymous’ poster recklessly flailing with PETA’s broad brush. And I have zero interest in participating in the back-and-forth required to demonstrate this person’s willingness to open their mouth just to switch feet. I am weary of multiple successive posts by one ‘anonymous’ hijacker who can’t constrain their rants to a single comment. No doubt, they have something to offer, but their over-the-top perspective is a very bad fit for DBO. If I was nearly motivated to delete my DBO bookmark, then it is reasonable to assume others would do the same.

So I need clarification. Do I continue to support the more focused efforts of DBO, or am I the enemy because I enjoy club level gun dog events, AKC field trials, pure breeds, and contribute to Guide Dogs for the Blind? Can I recommend DBO to others, or will their attempt at participation merely result in an assault that will alienate them?

If I were an agent provocateur, I’d behave exactly the way this person has. This is how a start-up organization’s base is eroded to irrelevance.

Blogger bitbypit  |  1/24/2009 1:54 AM  |  Flag  
Thank you for responding Dude I Bagged Ur Pit. We will now close this post to comments and consider how to build an informational blog post around it, as well as a policy that we can carry forward.

Post a Comment »

archives: