Update: This link has a picture of the two dogs involved. The photos aren't very good, but these dogs appear to be pretty much mixed breed dogs based on the photos. Not that breed of dog matters in this case, but while it would be unclear if these dogs would be impacted by a breed-specific law -- they certainly would have been impacted by an even remotely adequate behavior-based one.
Late last week, a Putnam County, FL man was severely attacked by two 'pit bull type" dogs while he was out gardening and sustained major injuries.
Today, 74 year old Roy McSweeney was taken off of life support and is now officially dead.
The story sadly follows a history of incidents involving these dogs. 18 months ago the dogs attacked another man on McSweeny's property and just last month, a 23 year old man suffered significant bites to both arms while visiting the dog's owner. However, in spite of knowing abou the two different attacks, the city failed to act on these aggressive dogs and allowed them to remain in their home with no restrictions. The dog's owner also apparently did nothing to prevent any other such incident.
Maybe more telling is that Capt. Johnny Greenwood apparently tried to blame the 1st victim for not seeking action after the first attack -- although the media notes that it is the city policy and state law that it is law enforcement's responsibility to take action, not the victim's. At this point, the Sheriff's office has quit talking to the media and is not issuing any more statements on the matter.
The most frustrating part of this situation is that it was completely and 100% avoidable if the city had a dangerous dog law (that was enforced) that would target dogs that, based on their behavior, were known to be aggressive. Clearly these dogs would have qualified. And yet, in this case, dogs with a history of aggression were allowed to continue living in a home with no restrictions and with no punishment to the owner.
Major attacks like this are never the dog's first act of aggression.
It's a sad and frustrating story and mythoughts and prayers go out to the McSweeney family. While one media outlet has decided to try to make the story about the type of dog involved, it completely missed the key story here that any type of law doesn't matter if local officials will not take action when a dog has a bite history. You can't judge the actions of dogs without judging the people's actions around them.
As always, I will follow up more if more info becomes available.
Oh, that poor man. My heart goes out to his family. There is nothing more frustrating than PREVENTABLE deaths (of ANY kind). I love the 'blame the victim' mentality that law enforcement is taking to cover their own butts for not doing their job. I expect they'll be backing a breed specific law as well to keep the heat off of themselves. After all, if they blame the dogs, they have zero responsibility here. So sad.
Posted by: Jennie | June 15, 2011 at 09:12 PM
Made my blood run cold. This so reminds me of Diane Whipple.
http://www.sfdogmauling.com/#Anchor-Successful-47857
Posted by: Andrea | June 16, 2011 at 10:52 AM
Does it really matter if these dogs are "real" pit bulls or not? The distinctions we dog people make between the breeds are lost on the public and they are the ones who, unfortunately, matter. I do agree with everything else you wrote, I just get tired of the "there is no such thing as a pit bull" argument.
Posted by: Donna | June 16, 2011 at 11:58 AM
Also, you did not make the "there is no such thing as a pit bull" argument and I apologize my comment made it seem that way.
Posted by: Donna | June 16, 2011 at 11:59 AM
Donna, I'm with you on the argument. You'll never see me make it. Clearly 'pit bull' is a classification of dogs. Now, the problem of course comes in on just how narrow or broad you classify them. If you go very broadly, you end up including a whole bunch of dogs that aren't in any way genetically related to any of the pit bull breeds and affect a lot of pet owners who don't know they'll be impacted. If you go narrowly, dogs like the ones involved in this case likely wouldn't be included.
Whereas a good behavior-based ordinance is pretty easy to define, and gets all of the dogs that people need to be concerned with, while excluding all the ones that are not problems...which is why the whole conversation needs to be about dangerous dogs, not dangerous 'breeds'.
Posted by: Brent | June 16, 2011 at 12:03 PM
As my husband always says, "If I'm standing in the street and a truck is coming toward me, I really don't care if it's a Ford or a Chevy - I get out of the street"!
Ordinances need to be behavior based.
Posted by: kmk | June 16, 2011 at 10:57 PM
So sad. They look likes mixes. The black dog looks like a lab mix and the fawn dog looks like an amstaff mix. I have an amstaff and wouldn't hesitate to put him down if anything happened ONE time! We have ins, crates, kennels, he's neutered, socialized, cgc trained...but wouldn't think twice of letting him meet his maker if he EVER bit anyone. This owner needs to be held accountable not just the police. Now the rest of us who love our bully breeds have to pay for this mans stupidity. My heart goes out to the mans family!
Posted by: Tonya | July 07, 2011 at 04:00 PM
There is a state law here in Florida that prohibits breed-specific laws. Most areas here have local laws that address dogs that exhibit aggressive behavior, and in most areas they ARE enforced.
I own two pitbulls. They are rolling around on my couch right now, and they are absolutely adorable. Great with kids, great with other dogs...
The breed is not the problem. Irresponsible owners are the problem. Owners should be prosecuted for the actions of their animals as if they committed the acts themselves. Then they would have no choice but to be more vigilant.
Posted by: Bryan McCollum | January 19, 2012 at 02:09 PM