Report: Dog Attacks on Livestock and Horses January - May 2008

Seattle, WA - DogsBite.org, a national dog bite victims’ group dedicated to reducing serious dog attacks by creating common sense laws, has released its first report on dog bite trends. The report details the occurrence of dog attacks on livestock and horses in the United States from January 1st through May 20th of 2008.

View full report:
Report: Dog Attacks on Livestock and Horses January - May 2008

The report shows the results of dog attacks on livestock have been devastating. While various breeds of roaming dogs pose a significant threat to livestock owners, the research revealed that only pit bulls have a history of attacking large animals without a partner or group of dogs. Furthermore, without immediate human intervention, pit bulls may not take down just two or three animals, but may continue until they have killed an entire herd.

"Another major attack occurred just a few months later in Quincy, Illinois. Three pit bull mixes killed 34 pet deer that were penned. The livestock owners were left with two animals. The valuation of the herd fell from $50,000 to $3,000 in a matter of hours."

Pit bull type dogs are the most common "fighting breed" and are comprised of several types of dogs: American pit bull terrier, Staffordshire bull terrier, American Staffordshire terrier, bull terrier, and any other pure bred or mixed breed that is a combination of these dogs. Selective breeding of pit bulls has created a dog with powerful jaws and unmatched tenacity. The report shows the difficulty of constraining pit bulls as well:

"Pit bulls are also notoriously difficult to constrain, particularly when in high-prey drive mode. Ample evidence exists that a pit bull can scale a 6-foot fence, break tethering methods -- including chains -- bite through wood slats and chew through metal to reach their target."

In the area titled, "Livestock Attacks on the Rise," the report details the Pit Bull Epidemic that occurred in Lubbock County, Texas between January 1st - March 18th 2008. The epidemic did not end until a child suffered serious injuries by a loose pit bull and a senior citizen was mauled by a stray dog that still remains unidentified today.

"By March 18th, the death count had reached 23. Animals killed by loose pit bulls included over a dozen goats, three prize winning potbelly pigs and three miniature horses, two of which were therapy animals owned by Hearts and Hooves Ranch. Several more of their miniature horses were left badly wounded. The shocked community raised $10,000 in donations for immediate veterinary costs for Hearts and Hooves. Rarely are livestock owners as fortunate."

In the area titled, "Horse Attacks on the Rise," the report warns horse owners that a single pit bull is just as lethal as a pack of dogs to a horse owner. It also reveals that the number of horse attacks in Britain, primarily by pit bull type dogs, has increased so rapidly in the last year that the British Horse Society (BHS) is now tracking them. The report urges US horse organizations to do the same.

"This past April, three horses with riders were attacked by pit bulls in nearby parks. The first, an attack on a young Arab-Morgan gelding occurred near Auburn, California. The pit bull attacked the horse's flank first, then locked onto the horse's nose. The gelding flung the dog into a nearby tree before losing balance and sending the 70-year old rider toppling to the ground. The dog attacked a third time, launching the two animals into a dead run. The horse was found three miles out. The pit bull and his owner were never found having fled the scene."

The latter portion of the report addresses the ineffectiveness of current US dog laws in semi-rural counties, particularly when it comes to animal attacks (as opposed to human attacks). It urges US livestock and horse owners to actively engage in the legislative process to ensure that "animal attacks" are strongly penalized.

"By the time a dog is legally labeled a Dangerous Dog (DD), it may have inflicted three attacks. These attacks may result in the loss of many livestock animals. Furthermore, as is often the case with pit bull owners, once the dog is given the DD label the owner will put the dog down. The financial cost of ownership becomes too high. The owner is then free to go out and buy two new pit bulls, and the process starts all over again."

Finally, the report reviews a variety of laws that can help protect livestock and horse owners from future attacks including: placing "potentially dangerous" or "dangerous" designations on specific breeds, banning certain breeds and limiting the adoption of these breeds from county animal shelters. The report notes that the state of Ohio, a handful of U.S. counties and about 250 U.S. cities already regulate pit bulls and other fighting breeds.

View full report:
Report: Dog Attacks on Livestock and Horses January - May 2008

2008 Dog Bite Fatality: Boy Killed by Family Pit Bull in Weslaco, Texas

fatal pit bull attack victim
Pablo Lopez, 5-years old, was brutally killed by his uncle's pit bull, named "Greco."

No Criminal Charges archived
UPDATE 06/20/08: No charges will be brought against the owner of the pit bull that savagely mauled and killed a 5-year old boy. The Hidalgo County Sheriff's Office said the found no signs of negligence. The manner of the boy's death was ruled an accident. "The more we investigate, the more we believe it was just a tragic accident," Sheriff Lupe Treviño said. He will finalize the investigation with the recommendation that no warrant be issued nor charges be filed, he said.

Two days earlier, the family pit bull named Greco "flew into a rage" at a dog that was walking by the family's home, reports The Monitor. The raging pit bull apparently redirected its attack onto Pablo as he walked out the back door. Adults in the home had told the boy to go to his room and put away his books, witnesses said, but instead Pablo wandered outside, where Greco quickly tackled him. The dog's owner, Isaac Hernandez, claimed the dog was "real nice" in the past.

Greco tore at the boy's torso and neck, quickly killing him. Deputies arriving at the scene shot and wounded the agitated dog at the gate of the family's fenced home.

The pit bull fled to a makeshift doghouse on the property. Copious blood stained the wooden pallets that comprise the dog's den Thursday.

"He never do this," said Pablo's uncle Isaac Hernandez, the pit bull's owner. "All the time the dog is real nice, but this is the first time and the last time, too." - Sean Gaffney, The Monitor, June 20, 2008

06/19/08: Pit Bull Kills Boy archived
Weslaco, TX - A 5-year old boy was mauled to death by a pit bull, according to Hidalgo County Sheriff Lupe Treviño. The deadly attack occurred about 8 pm at a home on North Beto Garcia Road, near the intersection of Mile 12 1/2 North. Deputies arrived at the scene to find the child's aunt holding the boy's limp body in her arms and the pit bull still in the front yard. The animal fled after a deputy shot and wounded it. Authorities were still trying to subdue the dog late Wednesday.

"No one needs to keep these types of dogs. These dogs turn on you." - Justice of the Peace Treviño

Neighbors told deputies the dog was always chained up. However, one witness told The Monitor the dog was not restrained just before the attack. Neighbors identified the little boy as Pablo Hernandez. He had been living with his aunt and uncle after Child Protective Services place him in their care. The circumstances of that placement are unknown, but police had no record of being called out to the house before. Luis Palomo, who witnessed the attack, describes what happened:

Luis Palomo, 20, said he was about four houses down the street playing football with his friends when the trouble began.

The boy was at home with a babysitter when a pit bull at the house began running around the front yard in an excited manner, getting a second pit bull inside the home riled up.

The babysitter and boy were inside the house with the second dog and were clearly fearful, Palomo said. He went over to help them and managed to distract the dogs temporarily, but the boy wandered out the back door. One of the dogs grabbed him by the torso and dragged him.

Palomo recalled hearing about 20 seconds of screaming, and then nothing. He said the dog locked its jaws around the boy's neck, quickly killing him." - Sean Gaffney, The Monitor, June 18, 2008

Related articles:
05/19/08: 2008 Fatality: Boy Killed by Pit Bulls in Breckenridge, Texas

Standing Firm on Pit Bull Ban: Lakewood Councilman Brian Powers Responds to Critics

Stands by Pit Bull Ban
Lakewood, OH - Councilman Brian Powers responds to non-constituent critics about Lakewood City Council's efforts to make their city a safer place to live.


When I agreed to serve as a member of Lakewood City Council, I vowed to strive to do the right thing for our residents, not necessarily the popular thing. Since introducing legislation to ban those dogs know as “pit bulls” from Lakewood, all members of Council have been deluged with e-mails arguing against such a ban, mostly from out-of-towners. Sadly, the pit bull ban is receiving an inordinate amount of public attention, even though it is but a small part of the broader effort by the Mayor and Council to make Lakewood a safer place to live. We should be focusing on the recent decision to add four new full-time and ten part-time police officers, but we are instead flooded with advice from out-of-state special interest groups about dogs.

In the past few weeks, I’ve personally been called a “hysterical demagogue” by out-of-town blogger Charles Brettell and have been labeled a “canine racist” by pit bull enthusiasts. Let’s get this straight: dogs are dogs and people are people. It is absurd to say that a pit bull ban is a form of racism. To compare human racial minorities to a breed of dogs is an insult and a trivialization of the very real issue of human racism.

Pit bull rescue groups are pledged to the protect pit bulls, so it is understandable that they do not like our proposed law. But members of Council have vowed to protect the people of Lakewood. Pit Bull Rescue Central argues that I have taken language out of context from their Web site. Yet, I quoted full sentences and whole paragraphs. The fact is that even pit bull supporters cannot deny that these dogs are different, as a result of very specific breeding practices. Here is further material from Pit Bull Rescue Central:

"It is unfortunate that one of the original purposes of the APBT [American Pit Bull Terrier] was (and still is) dog-to-dog combat, but it's a fact that can't be denied or ignored. It's important that every potential pit bull owner understand the selective breeding process that took place to make the dogs of today. …The American Pit Bull Terrier has been ‘selectively’ bred for hundreds of years to fight other dogs. This is the sad ‘work’ these dogs were created for. In the same way that Labradors were bred to retrieve birds, APBTs were bred to face other dogs in mortal combat. Even in dogs that are not recently bred from fighting lines, the urge to fight can arise at any time. Not to strongly emphasize this fact would be negligent….Training may help the owner control his/her dog, but it will not eliminate the risk for fights. In the case of a fighting breed, the urge to fight is often the result of genetic heritage. Remember that there is no magic cure to remove an inherited behavior selectively bred into a dog." (from PBRC.net)

Thus, it is clear that pit bulls ARE very different from other dogs. Some pit bull enthusiasts point to studies allegedly showing that golden retrievers and even poodles have a worse “temperament” than pit bulls. But the fact remains that, between 1982 and 2006, poodles killed no humans, while one person was strangled when a golden retriever accidentally tugged on a scarf, but pit bulls accounted for at least 110 deaths.

For the above reasons and for safety of our residents, I remain in support of the proposed “pit bull” ban.

Respectfully,
Brian Powers

Related articles:
06/01/08: Pit Bull Ban FAQ by Councilman Brian Powers

Posted on by

Aurora Fighting Breed Ban Will be Challenged in Federal Court

aurora fighting breed ban court challenge
United States District Court for the District of Colorado on 19th Street in Denver.

Now The Ugly Guys Show Up
Aurora, CO - The American Canine Foundation (ACF), a Washington-based pit bull special interest group, frequently threatens and pursues lawsuits to intimidate city officials who have passed breed-specific laws. The group seems to be in litigation on a constant basis, but has little to show for their efforts. Likely the most significant case they "assisted on" is the Ohio, Tellings case, which recently got overturned by the Ohio State Supreme Court.

The American Canine Foundation is unliked even by some devoted pit bull lovers -- the very people they represent. If one types "American Canine Foundation" or "ACF," into various pit bull forums, you can find deep-seated resentment in the threads. Currently, the group is down in Aurora, suing again and wasting more taxpayers dollars. One would think that every angle of "breed-specific" law that could be litigated in Colorado already has.

The lawsuit, filed by the American Canine Foundation, alleges there is no statistical proof that the ban enhances public safety.

"There's no evidence at all that any breed of dog is more vicious than any other breed of dog," said Sonya Dias, who filed a similar suit against the city of Denver. Her suit was later dismissed.

Aurora city attorney Charlie Richardson said the city is not taking this lightly.

He said Aurora looks forward to proving, through proper evidence and testimony, that pit bulls represent an enhanced threat. - The Denver Channel, May 30, 2008

In a partial summary judgment order dated May 29, Colorado District Judge Wiley Daniel responded to five separate claims filed against the city of Aurora by Florence Vianzon and the American Canine Foundation. In the order, Daniel found reason to hear arguments for two of the plaintiffs' five claims against the city, specifically that the current ban does not have a legitimate purpose and that it fails to properly compensate an owner for "property seized."

Daniel denied hearing several claims, including that the current ban is overly vague and that it violates state commerce laws and doctrines of separation of state powers (claims Colorado courts have already addressed). The aspects he did choose to hear, however, will be interesting to follow. Daniels wrote that while other cities with similar bans have had to show a direct relationship between pit bulls and a threat to public safety, Aurora relied largely on legal precedents.

City attorney Charlie Richardson said that this week's decision by Daniels will determine the city's strategy in August. He had hoped the whole case would be dismissed, but said, "The stage is now set to have that trial proceed. I think it's only one issue -- will the city prove that pit bulls represent an enhanced threat to public safety." While DogsBite.org is not a legal eagle, it seems there ought to be a precedent in public safety that allows laws to be developed to prevent future tragedies.

Related articles:
02/26/08: United States Supreme Court Leaves Intact Ohio Supreme Court’s Ruling