Please donate to support our work is a 501(c)(3) tax-exempt public charity organization. Learn more »

13 thoughts on “2016 Dog Bite Fatality: Woman Dies After Vicious Dog Mauling in Southern Dallas

Please review our comment policy.

  1. This is not a 'stray dog' problem. This is a roaming owned or recently abandoned pit bull problem.

    The entire success of the domestic dog as a species is due to the fact that it has lived for at least 20,000 years with us — owned or not — without regularly killing or even threatening us. The problem is NOT the domestic dog. In fact, the pit bull (and its mixes and derivatives) are so unlike all the rest of the species that it is what biologists call a morph. That is, a local population of a species that consists of interbreeding organisms and is distinguishable from other populations by morphology and/or behavior, though capable of interbreeding with those other populations.

    The distinguishing trait of the morph 'pit bull type dog' is that it is killing us at rates unheard of in all of human history. In all of human history, we have not tolerated animals that killed even a fraction of the numbers pit bull types are killing — and that killing rate is escalating exponentially now.

    Dallas needs to stop mouthing 'educate owners', since pit bull owners have now had more than 40 years to educate each other or be educated and become what they call 'responsible'. That isn't working. What was the definition of insanity again? Oh, right — keep doing the same thing and expect a different outcome.

    Dallas needs to name the problem and go to the state, demanding that the state's ban on breed specific legislation be lifted immediately. Better yet, Dallas needs to demand that the state institute a ban or some kind of strict regulation on the entire class of pit bull type dogs.

    The pit bull type dog is now gravely injuring and killing more of us on US soil than foreign and domestic terrorists combined. Why are politicians still refusing to name this problem and do something about it?

  2. How much education do dog owners REALLY need? I mean, come on. Dog ownership isn't rocket science.

    Furthermore, if you can't handle the responsibilities that come with dog ownership, don't have a dog. Remember, it's OKAY to be pet-free.

  3. The "educate owners" farce comes from the pit bull breeding lobby, because they know that weak laws and weak enforcement, and empty "education" lets them stay in business, no problem

  4. Of course we all know that this has nothing to do with stray dogs or crappy dog ownership. A "wild pack" of poorly trained Chihuahuas, Beagles, Cavalier King Charles Spaniels, or hell even Golden Retrievers isn't likely to kill anyone.

    The problem that everyone seems to overlook, which Sputnik explained perfectly, is that pit bulls aren't normal dogs. They are a dangerous menace that was created for murder has been allowed to live among human society under the guise of just another canine. The only "educating" people need is to be educated that all bully breed type dogs are to dangerous to live in human society and is best for them to be eradicated.

    All we need is for someone to step up to the plate and put it into action.

  5. Once your dog mauls or kills a person or pet you should have no choice as to whether that animal is surrendered, and it should automatically be euthanized. These people need to be banned from dog ownership and if they are found to get another, jailed. Period.

  6. It sure isn't. And Dallas is in Texas, one of the most gun-friendly states in the country. So, think Second Amendment Solutions and you will have a good idea of how people will solve the stray dog problem.

  7. I can't emphasize enough that it is NOT just animal welfare psychos who are responsible for the intrusion of deadly No Kill policies and procedures into our animal control departments

    It is also the BREEDER lobby which is heavily invested in No Kill for a variety of political reasons

  8. "I hate to say it, but people die in traffic fatalities every day."

    And, for that VERY reason, DBRF's by packs of feral dogs is perfectly acceptable.

    If she's so focused on traffic safety, perhaps she should get a job in DOT.

  9. I send this as a plea to the victim advocacy community to dig deep and understand what is going on here.

    The Boston Consulting Group does NOT represent public interests or safety. It is a BUSINESS lobbying group that represents business interests and those of the wealthy.

    This article is key to understandingg the charade that is going on in Dallas.

    First of all, you can see in the article that special interests had already hired this consulting group to push their own interests onto the city.

    The decisions for how to run animal control have been getting decided by PRIVATE people on an Animal Commission (that obviously has been failing badly for some time) led currently by Financier Peter Brodsky. Again, these are not elected people who answer to the public. They are private individuals pursuing their own agendas through using Dallas government as a platformt. The consulting gig has "been in the works for months" says Brodsky. They went ahead and hired a consulting group and never even bothered to tell the city or ask permission so that questions could be asked about what the real motives are here

    NOW WE KNOW WHAT WAS GOING ON BEHIND THE BACKS OF DALLAS CITIZENS, and why things have been getting worse. Because it isn't public safety that is the goal. The goal is this.

    "Boston Consulting Group will soon begin an 11-week study of animal issues in Dallas. The immediate goal, those involved said, is to reduce the number of loose dogs on the streets. In the long run, the consultants will look at ways to help Dallas become a “no-kill” city, one that euthanizes almost no animals at its shelter."

    (not enough room, will continue this)

  10. (continued)

    What's been going on in Dallas is exactly what has been going on in some other cities, like Los Angeles, and creating the disasters that are taking the lives of people and innocent pets, taking away civil rights, taking away peace and safety for citizens.

    PRIVATE individuals get onto these volunteer commissions to run government departments and decide policy.

    Behind the scenes in Dallas, we now see that private No Kill interests have been permeating animal control. Resulting in the same failures we see everywhere Private No Kill is brought into a public public safety department. Increasing dog population. Increasing dog abandonment. Increasing unregulated breeders. Increasing dog fighting. Refusal to admit dogs into shelters for fears of making statistics look bad and having to admit failure. Refusal to pick up strays for the same reason. Refusal to enforce animal control laws. Weakening or even elimination of animal control laws. Increasing hoarders. Increasing puppy mills. Increasing animal cruelty. Increasing dog attacks. Protection of dangerous dogs and their owners. Everything gets worse for all. Except the dog industry.

    This is what happens every time No Kill is brought into animal control, and public interests are hurt badly. Just in Los Angeles, things continue to decline for people and pets after a couple of wealthy individuals connected to the dog breeding industry brought in a dog breeder to run a "No Kill" animal control department which is in chaos. Some may remember the disasters of No Kill brought into San Antonio animal control, or Philadelphia. Complete failures in every way, including for the animals!

    Whether anyone likes it or not, the No Kill agenda was taken over long ago by the dog breeding and dealing lobby to pursue its own financial interests and to run animal control the way the business lobby desires. And what is good for the dog breeding lobby is usually bad for everyone else.

    If you continue to read that article, you can see what the goal of this consulting report is. Believe me, it's already decided. There will be no unbiased investigation or research. It was already written up long ago for other purposes as Brodsky admits, for the purposes of bringing No Kill into animal control. They are just using the cover of this tragedy to hide that and push it through. Doesn't this sound familiar, the same tactic used elsewhere?

    " That will include looking at whether Dallas Animal Services should remain under Code Compliance in the city’s organizational structure."

    No Kill wants to take away the animal control department, and put it into the hands of private No Kill interests and businesses. A surefire disaster, as we have seen everywhere this is done.

    I hope people understand that Consulting companies are not unbiased. They do not analyze problems scientifically and come up with answers that meet the needs of all, or the majority. They are hired to put together rationalizations and a facade, a sort of sales pitch based on pseudo research, that rationalizes the interests of those who HIRE THEM. We see who is hiring them. It isn't public safety interests, medical professionals, child safety advocates, civil rights advocates, who are hiring the consulting group. it is the DOG INDUSTRY that is hiring them, as you can see in this article.

    Mark my words. When you get the consultant's report, you will see a lot of buzzwords, doublespeak, and claimed interest in public safety. But the conclusions will be the same anywhere else the dog industry takes control of animal control and tries to push in No Kill. No Kill policies pushed as the answers.

    And those are very deadly answers

    I hope the victim advocacy community can make an impression on a city mayor who is caving into wealthy private interests, and getting ready to turn Dallas into a battlefield.

  11. I hear you.

    I think there is a battle going on in the animal control/animal welfare community/political community there

    Public safety vs No Kill

    I have seen so often that groups like Best Friends hire these consulting companies to come up with rationalizations of their pre-packaged agenda, and then use a local official or volunteer board or politician to push it through using that report, and hope that is not the case here.

    But the fact that Brodsky admits that the Boston Consulting Group had already been hired prior to this attack to "look into" putting No Kill formally into Dallas AC is a huge red flag to me.

Comments are closed.