Busy week this week. I'm going to hit the highlights. Probably not much commentary this week as my taxes still aren't done. Eeek!
Cullman, AL girl attacked by 125 lbs dog
The Bullmastiff was running loose and attacked Salena Burkes from a swing amonst a group of children playing. What's interesting are the quotes from the girl's father who believes that Bullmastiffs should be locked up because the breed seems to flip like a switch. "One minute, they'll be kind and gentle. When it was put up, it was kind and gentle, but when it was dragging this kid around, there was nothing gentle about that," he said. Gee, where have I heard that before?
Judge lets "Pit bull" ban in 4 Arkansas Cities Stand....for now
District Judge Leon Holmes is going to allow four Arkansas cities (Beebe, Jacksonville, North Little Rock and Lonoke) to continue to enforce their 'pit bull' bans between now and when the federal lawsuit is heard against these four communities. The lawsuit is tentatively scheduled to go to trial on December 1.
Councilman Tony Stewart proposed a new ordinance in the city that would ban all new "pit bulls' from coming into the city and would require existing dogs to be muzzled and for owners to have a $100,000 insurance policy. The proposal comes just days after an attack on a five year old girl in the community. I'm sure that Stewart will say that this isn't a knee-jerk reaction to the attack, but it sure has that look and feel.
The head of animal control is looking to ban all "pit bulls" unless the owner has a breeder's license. Huh? So they want to be sure that if someone wants to own a 'pit bull' they have to breed more of them in order to do so? Per usual, the people who bring forth these laws continue to prove that they are not at all well-thought out.
Dog attacks boys in Walnut Hills, OH
The dog bit a young boy on the face in this suburb of Cincinnati. The owner, Jason Cody, noted that he had gotten the dog for protection because his home had previously been broken into. It's been well documented that dogs don't really make good burglar alarms because just as humans have a tough time distinguishing between someone who has bad motives and someone who doesn't, it is impossible for dogs. And thus dogs that are encouraged to be watchdogs inevitably end up biting someone they "shouldn't" have bitten. Because of this, the correlation between high property crime areas and dog bites exists.
Speaking of correlation between crime and dog attacks
Two police officers were bitten by a cross-breed dog as they were conducting interviews in a neighborhood surrounding a trailer where three children were murdered earlier this week near Vancouver.
Haverhill, MA councilor says laws should target dog behavior, not breeds
William Macek notes that breed specific laws don't always pass legal muster and that 'pit bulls' didn't used to be the target of these types of laws, but other breeds did. At least one person up there gets it.
Midland North Carolina boy recovering after surgeries from dog attack
The boy was attacked by a Rottweiler that was being watched by a neighbor for a freind.
A neighborhood group complains that 'pit bulls' are a growing problem
Apparently, this group thinks that 'pit bulls' are a problem in their neighborhood. Interestingly this is in Cincinnati where 'pit bulls' have been banned since 2003. Breed bans only work to affect law-abiding citizens...they've never effective at dealing with people who don't want to obey laws, which are usually the people who cause the problem in the first place.
"Pit bull" attacks woman in Charlotte, NC
Not much real information in the story other than now 'pit bulls' aren't attacking like sharks, they're now attacking like chain saws...
Officer saves boy from "vicious" pit bull attack
The officer was able to lure the aggressive "beast" into his cop car using a taco. No one was bitten in this case.
Not sure why these stories are news, but this one from La Porte, IN is about a Labrador Retriever that attacked and seriously injured a Jack Russel Terrier.
"Pit bulls" are only as mean as their owners
This well-thought out editorial provides some solid solutions to dog bite problems instead of BSL, including expanding low cost spay/neuter services, enacting tougher restrictions on tethering, convicting violent criminals and community outreach problems. Congrats to Amy Thomas on this solid piece.
More information on Diane Jessup's Law Dogs USA program from a TV News Station in Tucsan, AZ.
Interesting TV Editorial from Seattle
It's not the dogs, it's the owners. And the host doesn't quite understand why that's such a tough concept to understand. Me neither.
Have a great week.
While it does appear on the surface that many of the dog incidents relate to certain areas or lower economic areas, if that is shown statewide, and it just happens to coincide with lower altering percentage, lower training percentage, and higher abandonment (to shelter for example)then it would appear that the combination of no dog training skills, lack of knowledge of safety training for kids, and poverty all combine to = higher rate or more likely to have child sustain injury via dog bite. I don't believe altering does anything re aggression v. humans, however it might may make the dog a little harder to train, if the dog wants to go after dogs in heat, or chase other dogs, etc. So from a general standpoint, I believe that the safety training for kids could/would benefit all children, whether they own a dog or not, but would be even more helpful to economically disadvantaged youth who may not have been taught simple canine facts.
Posted by: s kennedy | April 15, 2008 at 10:58 AM
I've been watching this for awhile, and when I can get an address of an attack, I'll cross-reference the demographic data of the area. Kansas City is the only place that I've done a full-fledged study on (and really, I did it by zip code because that's the data I had, if someone really wanted to do a good study, they'd do it by census tract).
I think there is definitely a correlation between low-income, poverty, and crime and dog attacks...and I think there are a lot of potential reasons for it. Certainly owner education, training and knowledge of child safety with dogs are a part of it.
But also, poverty tends to breed higher crime -- and many people get dogs as their security system (Which is also a bad idea). I think this has big correlation to different types of dogs that are responsible for attacks -- certain dogs are chosen due to their reputations for being mean, encouraged to be mean (your training issue) and end up being mean (go figure).
With "pit bulls" being inexepensive and easy to get in most inner-cities, along with their reputation for being aggressive, has put a lot of them in the situation where they are poorly trained to be "watch dogs" and end up causing other problems.
This was the same delima German Shepherds and Dobermans had in decades past.
I would still like to do a lot more study on this, but will basically have to start it from scratch as no one really tracks the data like I would need to be able to execute the research...
Posted by: Brent | April 15, 2008 at 11:22 AM
Re the Amy Thomas editorial...I don't know what she knows about APBTs. But it appears she just glossed over a few articles and came up with "criminals" shouldn't own dogs, "bully" breeds need a public makeover, "tethering" and or "non-altering" causes dogs to kill people, and basically that attacking dogs are owned by bad people. We all know even good people could own a dog that bites. A dog does not have to be unaltered, tethered, or owned by a criminal to bite. Although she made a pitch for blaming "people" rather than dogs, this is not necessarily helpful to APBT owners.
Why? Because the courts say what she says, that owners need to be controlled because they don't control their own dogs. The point of irresponsible owners is true in many cases, however----it does not help the current APBT owners override BSL. The Ohio case (Tellings)--however misguided-or corrupt-- clearly indicates the Supreme Ct of Ohio says that due to the PEOPLE using dogs for crime, police shooting these dogs, etc, that the dogs are rationally kept in the "vicious" category because people using them for bad acts, affects the health, safety, welfare of the public. (Also remember, all 3 courts agreed the breed is not inherently dangerous.)
Even if this was not true, claiming that the owners are to blame does not help the plight of the dogs. Punish the deed, not the breed indicates all dogs should be regulated evenhandedly by their acts--it does say all people should be regulated by their acts. [I am not saying people should not be responsible for their acts, but as to dog law/the US courts, the courts re BSL will try/use either the "people" or the dog breed, to justify BSL.] It is actually easier for a court to use the acts of the people than to prove a breed is inherently dangerous. Nelson makes the pitch that the breed is more likely to cause severe injury AND that bad "people" own the dogs. Think about it. That law is still in effect.
Posted by: s kennedy | April 15, 2008 at 12:31 PM