"GIG HARBOR, Wash. -- A 59-year-old woman has been hospitalized after
being mauled by two pit bulls who came into her house Tuesday morning.

"Pierce County Sheriff spokesman Ed Troyer said the two dogs came
through a door that was left slightly open and attacked the woman
while she was in bed at about 9 a.m. The dogs did not belong to her."

http://www.komotv.com/news/local/9295026.html

Questions abound.

Did she leave a door to the house open, or did the dogs enter through
the doggy door.

The woman supposedly defended herself with a firearm, but couldn't hit
either dog?

She was "injured severely" but is in "satisfactory condition"?

She supposedly has a service dog. Where was it? The Jack Russell
supposedly came in through a doggy door, and was killed. Again, where
was the service dog? What kind of service dog?

The owner of one of the dogs was dog-sitting the other one, kept it on
a chain in his fenced backyard, and then both dogs apparently escaped.

And it wasn't their first time, apparently, reflecting repeated
negligence. I hope he's saved his money, cuz he's going to need it.

Anyway, provided the story is accurate, the thought that these dogs
would enter a strange house and do this, is quite disturbing (even to
me, someone who adores the breed).

The morons who are breeding most of these dogs today are the real
culprits, of course, but its going to be the breed as a whole that
will eventually pay the price.

They may call these dogs pit bulls, but really they're not.

They're something else.

--
Handsome Jack Morrison

The "reality-based" community and the jihadists.
http://hotair.com/archives/2007/08/2...the-jihadists/

The "reality-based" community: Hopelessly Devoted to Failure.
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q...ZhYjU5ZjEzNDE=

A History Channel program every member of the "reality-based" community should watch:
http://www.history.com/shows.do?acti...isodeId=240087

"Reality-based" writer blames Vick's friends, not Vick:
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/mark-fi...failed-friends

"The four girls were born at a US hospital because there was no space available at Canadian neonatal intensive care units":
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6951330.stm

Why "liberal" doesn't quite fit:
"In the short term, this reflects the failure of the Republican Party to secure its hard-won victories. In
the longer term, this may provide a new opportunity for the heirs to authentic liberalism - today's conservatives -
as they often thrive when lovers of big government, by whatever name they go by, overreach."
http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2007/...beral-doe.html

"Reality-based" Rabbi Defends Michael Vick:
http://www.debbieschlussel.com/archi...iberal_lo.html

"The main proponents of 'universal coverage' want to throw more money at the current health care system,
which strikes me as unwise. I believe that the 'universal coverage' mantra is dysfunctional for the same
reason that 'more money for public schools' is a dysfunctional mantra for education. When your current
approach is digging you into a hole, the sensible thing to do is not to dig faster. It is to stop digging."
http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=080607B

I saw this story on TV and of course it was very disturbing to me as all
dog attacks are.

I certainly don't have the answer other than they were dog aggressive
dogs bent on killing the JRT. How that transgressed to attacking a
woman in her bed I have no idea. I think to say the least poor breeding
is to blame, failure to contain the dogs, and lack of training.

I believe I saw the story on Headline News/CNN? They also had a
spokesperson from the ASPCA. The newsperson inquired of the ASPCA
should there be a breed ban on Pit Bulls? She said no, of course not,
but she did advocate spaying and neutering all dogs that are not in the
show ring. All breeds.

They then showed a flawed report IMO of deaths caused by dogs. It must
have been over a long period of time because at least one of the deaths
caused by a (Doberman) was in 1982. The following numbers are from
memory so.....
Dobermans 3
GSD's 7
Pit Bulls 98
Those were numbers put up by the TV anchor. She did not quote the
source, if she did I missed it. Uhhhh, by the way whatever happened to
Chows, Rotts, etc. why weren't they on the list? No offense to owners
of those breeds.

The ASPCA rep attempted to say that the numbers were flawed and one of
the reasons PBT's and PBT mixes ranked so highly is because they are so
popular today. The rep indicated that PBT's are wonderful dogs if raised
correctly. I would like to have heard that genetically they can be
damaged due to bad breeding for all the wrong reasons. It was only a
few minute interview so I assume the ASPCA rep just did her best.

The newswoman announced that there was a poll posted on their website
and we could vote on whether we believe there should be a breed ban. I
believe I was watching Headline News which is in the CNN family? I have
not looked for the poll yet, but if anyone comes across it before I do.
Please share as I would like to vote. I would also like to be advised
of the results in case I miss it.

The ASPCA rep said that 98 percent of dog attacks are by intact dogs. I
was really surprised by that. I do not know if she meant fatalaties or
dog bites, either way it certainly does make a good case for spaying and
neutering your dog. Even if the numbers are not correct.



Be Free.....Judy

"Judith Althouse" wrote in message
...

The ASPCA rep said that 98 percent of dog attacks are by intact dogs. I
was really surprised by that. I do not know if she meant fatalaties or
dog bites, either way it certainly does make a good case for spaying and
neutering your dog. Even if the numbers are not correct.

You shouldn't be surprised. Several studies have shown that the dog most
likely to bite is an unneutered male dog. And according to one source I've
read, neutered male dogs have *never* been implicated in serious attacks or
deaths of humans. Unfortunately, I don't have time to look for that link
right now.

flick 100785

In article ,
elegy wrote:
i still think it's an oversimplification to look specifically at
whether the dog is intact.

To a point. "Is this owner responsible?" is a question with
an analog answer and "Is this dog neutered?" is a question
with a binary, digital answer. If neutering were perfectly
correlated with ownership skills it would be reasonable to
look at neutering. Instead, neutering seems to be pretty
highly correlated with ownership skills. People who don't
neuter their animals tend to be crappy owners. Now,
obviously there are exceptions, but there don't appear to be
enough exceptions to chuck the rule of thumb completely.

And I write this as someone with intact dogs and as someone
to whom the local humane society won't adopt other dogs
because of it. It's an oversimplification but I don't think
it's outrageous given the state of things in the US right
now.
--
Melinda Shore - Software longa, hardware brevis -

Prouder than ever to be a member of the reality-based community

"Many Dogs (flick)" wrote in message
.. .
"Judith Althouse" wrote in message
...

The ASPCA rep said that 98 percent of dog attacks are by intact dogs. I
was really surprised by that. I do not know if she meant fatalaties or
dog bites, either way it certainly does make a good case for spaying and
neutering your dog. Even if the numbers are not correct.

You shouldn't be surprised. Several studies have shown that the dog most
likely to bite is an unneutered male dog. And according to one source
I've read, neutered male dogs have *never* been implicated in serious
attacks or deaths of humans. Unfortunately, I don't have time to look
for that link right now.


Here's a case of a fatal attack on a 6 year old by a 6-8 month PBT puppy,
as posted in the AOL CBB:

http://www.wetmtv.com/news/local/story.aspx?content_id=c36c5f68-1abf-4ce2-96de-9076b7af0648

http://www.news10now.com/content/top...sp?ArID=117058

http://www.stargazette.com/apps/pbcs...=2007308200009

http://www.stargazette.com/apps/pbcs...=2007708210309

The last link seems to have the most information. This seems to have been
another tragedy of a broken home, poor parenting, poor judgment, and
possibly incomplete or inaccurate reporting. It seems odd that the father
did not hear anything, and that the attack proved to be so quickly fatal.
The injuries were not well described, only as consistent with an attack.
The father just found his son unresponsive.

But now there is yet another incident that will sway public opinion against
PBTs and similar breeds.

There seems to have been some previous history of aggression with this dog.
Perhaps there can be some sort of aggression screening as part of dog
license renewal, to alert owners of possible problems. Maybe offer
discounts if the dog passes the tests, and require an additional fee or
bond if dangerous traits are detected. The test could be performed by a
licensed vet, trainer, kennel operator or shelter. That would be more fair
than BSL.

Paul, Muttley and Lucky

In article ,
elegy wrote:
sure, but it still goes back to reproductive status as reflection of
ownership skills, not the reproductive status as reason for
aggression.

I think that's usually true. I think it's also the case
that an intact animal can be "testier." That's no excuse
for poor handing/training by the owner, of course, but it's
a bit more of a challenge, particularly for someone who
can't be bothered in the first place.
--
Melinda Shore - Software longa, hardware brevis -

Prouder than ever to be a member of the reality-based community

"Paul E. Schoen" spoke these words of wisdom in
:


But now there is yet another incident that will sway public opinion against
PBTs and similar breeds.

I'd like to hear how they report statistics anyhow. When there are reports of
pitbull fatalities nearly every week, you have to wonder how the statics
claim there are only 93 PB deaths since 1993

On Aug 23, 3:01 pm, elegy wrote:
On Thu, 23 Aug 2007 14:33:04 -0400, "Paul E. Schoen"

wrote:
There seems to have been some previous history of aggression with this dog.
Perhaps there can be some sort of aggression screening as part of dog
license renewal, to alert owners of possible problems. Maybe offer
discounts if the dog passes the tests, and require an additional fee or
bond if dangerous traits are detected. The test could be performed by a
licensed vet, trainer, kennel operator or shelter. That would be more fair
than BSL.

what tests? and who is going to do all of this? who is going to
enforce it? where's the money to do all of this going to come from?
will this encompass all dogs, or just certain breeds? if somebody's
fear-aggressive little dog tries to bite, will they be considered as
dangerous as somebody's dominant-aggressive large breed dog?

Boy, no kidding. Cross vet off that list - - there are vets who think
greyhounds are 'aggressive' when they come in to have minor skin
wounds stitched up that are the result of the type of play (even
rougher play) that would not leave marks on thicker skinned, heavier
coated dogs. And we know that vets are not behaviorists, so not all
vets will distinguish between dog-aggressive and human-aggressive. As
for kennel owners and shelter staff making those judgments - - forget
it. And all of this assumes that the owners of potentially dangerous
dogs are going to license said dogs and/or have their dogs evaluated
for "dangerous traits".

Mustang Sally

"elegy" wrote in message:

and who is going to do all of this?

Sue Sternberg and trained minions thereof, of course.

It would probably mean that half of us would be handing over our dogs to be
euthed.

Suja

On Aug 23, 2:33 pm, "Paul E. Schoen" wrote:
"Many Dogs (flick)" wrote in h.net...

"Judith Althouse" wrote in message
...

The ASPCA rep said that 98 percent of dog attacks are by intact dogs. I
was really surprised by that. I do not know if she meant fatalaties or
dog bites, either way it certainly does make a good case for spaying and
neutering your dog. Even if the numbers are not correct.

You shouldn't be surprised. Several studies have shown that the dog most
likely to bite is an unneutered male dog. And according to one source
I've read, neutered male dogs have *never* been implicated in serious
attacks or deaths of humans. Unfortunately, I don't have time to look
for that link right now.

Here's a case of a fatal attack on a 6 year old by a 6-8 month PBT puppy,
as posted in the AOL CBB:

http://www.wetmtv.com/news/local/story.aspx?content_id=c36c5f68-1abf-...

http://www.news10now.com/content/top...sp?ArID=117058

http://www.stargazette.com/apps/pbcs...=2007308200009

http://www.stargazette.com/apps/pbcs...=2007708210309

The last link seems to have the most information. This seems to have been
another tragedy of a broken home, poor parenting, poor judgment, and
possibly incomplete or inaccurate reporting. It seems odd that the father
did not hear anything, and that the attack proved to be so quickly fatal.
The injuries were not well described, only as consistent with an attack.
The father just found his son unresponsive.

But now there is yet another incident that will sway public opinion against
PBTs and similar breeds.

There seems to have been some previous history of aggression with this dog.
Perhaps there can be some sort of aggression screening as part of dog
license renewal, to alert owners of possible problems. Maybe offer
discounts if the dog passes the tests, and require an additional fee or
bond if dangerous traits are detected. The test could be performed by a
licensed vet, trainer, kennel operator or shelter. That would be more fair
than BSL.

Paul, Muttley and Lucky

The problem with increasing licensing requirements is it will probably
just result in an even lower percentage of people in compliance with
local licensing laws. I have heard of some local governments that
believe they only have about 20% compliance with their existing
licensing laws. The fewer people in compliance, the more difficult it
will be to properly enforce existing laws as well as any more laws
they feel like creating. Although it would be more fair than BSL, I
don't really see either as a satisfactory solution to the problem.

Nick