My Photo


follow us in feedly

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

Best Of KC Dog Blog

Become a Fan

« Georgia and John Garcia on Larry King tonight | Main | Dog fatally attacks 3 day old infant »

August 18, 2009



From the first article: "Killer dogs mystify Lexington" - what? There is nothing mystifying about a pack of territorial predators attacking someone.

The two reports are a bit conflicting. The first one says the dogs were not aggressive, while the second said deputies had to shoot at the dogs to get them away from the bodies. The first says the dogs were not malnourished while the second shows pictures of undernourished dogs. One report says the dogs are wild/feral, another says they were abandoned/now taken care of by a neighbor. Holy colliding stories, batman!


oh BTW, your friend (ha) the terrierman has a new post up applauding, while sneering at Fatal Dog Attacks as "someone's tract book".

The man is truly deranged. At this point, I'm pretty convinced he's just writing to get a rise out of us. I don't understand why I can't convince pit bull people to STOP linking to him on their blogs.

PAMM - People Against Moronic Men

He's cooking his own goose by using DB as a "source".


Well, sixteen dogs, including five puppies have been summarily executed. They were described as wild/feral and malnourished; a far cry from some witness claims that the dogs were friendly, fat dogs.

And just like I thought, the coroner thinks the dogs were probably hungry. He probably saw wounds that were more predatory in nature.

Sad all around.

Brent Toellner

Emily, it appears that the terrierman has fallen into the trap of seeing an increase in traffic when he writes something ridiculous about pit bulls, and then wants to follow up with more ridiculous statements to get more traffic.

I do think it's funny that I got booted out of the conversation when responding to his statement that Boston's law seems to be fine "IN REALITY" by asking how he defined it as working, because he had posted no bite numbers, no euthanasia numbers and no data on the amount of money being spent on the program. And for asking those questions, I got booted for "wasting his time." LOL. It seems that asking those three basic questions should be the first precursor to whether or not something is working fine....


"In the blink of an eye, we have a pack of 50 dogs because people don't spay and neuter," she (the director of the shelter) said.

I know some people are hesitant to push s/n because of health issues that are very real. For owned dogs who can be contained that should be between the owner and the vet, with the owner held responsible for consequences.

But this is about spay/neuter to avoid unwanted litters - an entirely different concept. These two helpless people are dead. But the lack of respect shown to the dogs because we, as a country, allow pets to breed to the point that we just casually kill whole shelters full on a regular basis was just as much a part of this. Should have been stopped long ago.

There were more than two victims here, as in most tragedies. May they all rest in peace.


I have no problem with spay neuter. I am very against mandatorty spay neuter.

In this case you have a disabled caregiver in a rural area. Could he get access to spay neuter? If he could get transportation to a facility, was it something that he could afford.

The Director did not say that the owner would not s/n, but that he did not. So the real 64,000.00 question is why not. Were services ever offered or discussed? Is there and effort in the area to promote low cost s/n? Could this have been avoided?

This county does not have leash law, grumping that people are not altering their pets is really putting the cart in front of the horse.

The comments to this entry are closed.