Pets.ca - Pet forum for dogs cats and humans 

-->

dogs attack

wdawson
April 23rd, 2006, 09:10 AM
just when thing where looking good this happens.
http://www.torontosun.com/News/TorontoAndGTA/2006/04/23/1546675-sun.html

jesse's mommy
April 23rd, 2006, 09:26 AM
This is awful. They didn't say what provoked this. Have there been any problems with these dogs in the past?

wdawson
April 23rd, 2006, 09:33 AM
they don't even say why she was there

jesse's mommy
April 23rd, 2006, 09:35 AM
What if she was trespassing onto someone's private property? I'm not trying to make excuses for this accident, but it just seems like something is missing from the story.

erykah1310
April 23rd, 2006, 11:31 AM
The whole story seems to be a little blown outta proportion already!, Sad to say thats what happens with Rottie/pit attacks.
It just kind of seems strange, all of a sudden a woman is standing there and gets attacked???? Hmmmm?

phoenix
April 23rd, 2006, 11:55 AM
Sorry but I have to vehemently disagree. Any time a woman is sent to the hospital, loses muscle tissue right off the bone... when dogs continue to attack even after being clobbered by shovels etc... That is not blown out of proportion, I don't care what breed of dog it is. It is a horrific attack whatever the circumstances. I pray that she is okay and doesn't lose her abilities due to this.

twodogsandacat
April 23rd, 2006, 11:59 AM
Terrible but I still have to ask. What makes this different than:

Courtney Trempe of Stouffville, Ontario being killed by a bull mastiff.

Three year old Cody Fontaine being killed by three Rottweilers and a collie in Maple Ridge, B.C.

The attack which killed four-year-old James Waddell after three large dogs attacked him in his father's house near Hampton, N.B.

The 1998 mauling death in of an 8-year-old boy in Cross Lake MANITOBA which RCMP say was caused by Husky dogs.

Two major differences. Pit bulls were not involved in any of these attacks and these attacks were fatal.

Dangerous dogs are dangerous dogs. Only an idiot whom has NO CONCERN for real public safety would target just one breed even though that breed has not caused a death in Canada in over ten years. The same kind of idiot Attorney General should apply the same principle to gun crime. Come on Michael Bryant. Letís ban Glock handguns and Mauser machine pistols but let the gun criminals who favour .22 calibre (deuce-deuce as the kids in TO call them) off scott free. The Attorney General needs to create laws that make us safe not give us the illusion of safety. Anything less is criminal.

wdawson
April 23rd, 2006, 12:11 PM
twodogs........i agree 100%

chico2
April 23rd, 2006, 12:30 PM
It is a horror-story for sure,no matter what the breed.
I hope the lady will recover:fingerscr
It will however once again give to fuel M Bryants BSL-law,just as people were starting to doubt the validity of it:sad:

twodogsandacat
April 23rd, 2006, 01:48 PM
Also we should ask Michael Bryant HOW his legislation would of prevented THIS attack. Take away ONE factor in the story and there is ABSOULTY NOTHING that would of prevented this attack from happening 15 years from now. That fact is that as of right now these dogs have reported to be pit bulls.

It is NOT ILLEGAL to own a pit bull.
The pit bulls where on their property.
They would not be required to be muzzled.
They would not be required to be leashed.

It sounds like two dangerous dogs and the reality is in fifteen years from now there will still be dangerous dogs. People will still create, seek out or breed dangerous dogs.

Doubt it? Winnipeg is at the end of that 15 year cycle already. Ask the 63 year old woman dragged down a Winnipeg street who expressed a believe she was about to die if she feels better that a large breed of dog (the same breed involved in deaths over the last three years in Canada) attacked her rather than an illegal pit bull.

I am also very interested to know if maybe there was one small factor in Mr. Bryant’s law that was violated. Were these dogs altered as the law requires? That may be the only violation of the DOLA if they weren’t.

phoenix
April 23rd, 2006, 06:28 PM
did I miss something? Did the article say the woman was on the dog's property??
I wonder if the woman had been a child (as your cited cases are...) would she have died of these injuries. Also, if she had been alone without the help of these neighbours... I don't think this can, or should, be trivialized at all. (this is not a breed argument for me, btw, at all.)

wdawson
April 23rd, 2006, 06:41 PM
it suggests she was but does not say if she was a guest of the property owner....trespassing.....ect.......nore is their a reaction from the property owner.......something not right with this story.....and for the sun to not publish all(they love to sensationalize every story)just confirms this.

twodogsandacat
April 23rd, 2006, 07:44 PM
did I miss something? Did the article say the woman was on the dog's property??
I wonder if the woman had been a child (as your cited cases are...) would she have died of these injuries. Also, if she had been alone without the help of these neighbours... I don't think this can, or should, be trivialized at all. (this is not a breed argument for me, btw, at all.)

First yes. "The mauled woman, who didn't live at the Monkton address, was recovering in hospital yesterday." but that's not really the issue. The issue is that the new law Michael Bryant touts as being the silver bullet to save us all from dangerous dogs does not to stop attacks on you own property. But enough about that. Let's talk about trivial.

I appreciate the fact that this is not a breed argument for you, at all. It’s not for me either.

This is a serious dog attack. In nearly EVERY dog attack however you will hear arguments that ‘if it where a child they’d be dead’. I hate hearing that argument because usually a)it wasn’t a child and b)even it was the child wouldn’t be dead. We don’t say every time an adult falls off of a bicycle that ‘if that where a child they’d be dead’ so yes I usually disagree. Usually. In the severity of this attack and reports of the damage I could very well imagine that a child would be dead.

That said. Mr. Bryant has trivialized dog attacks. He failed to make a comment on the death in BC. He referred to the breed that killed James Waddell as not an issue. His office asked for calls from people who had been attacked by pit bulls but IGNORED calls from Donna Trempe whose child was killed by a Mastiff. Thankfully she persisted and with the pressure brought on his office (him) she testified at the hearings.

I was initially opposed to the wording of the ban. When my dog fell off of the rader with the change in wording to ‘substantially similar’ instead of looks like I could of backed off. I didn’t because that would make me a coward.

Why do I still oppose BSL? Because I researched it. I can not turn my back on: the hundreds of people I met with good pit bulls. The hundreds of pit bulls I met in Louisiana. The email from Donna Trempe. The needless deaths of innocent children across Canada. No CANADIAN deaths in recent history are tied to pit bulls by the way. I don’t care about the States. I live in Canada and my government should protect me from clear and PRESENT danger here.

Banning a breed of dog while not addressing any of the underlying issues as to why this dog is the target at this time is morally reprehensible. To make out every person who opposes this ban to either be a breeder, a criminal or at best white trash with money is also morally reprehensible.

In my mind Michael Bryant is the coward. Michael Bryant would love to trivialize all dog attacks so that he can keep the pit bull elevated above all the rest and convince us that a ban against a single breed of dog is about public safety while the killers in recent CANADIAN history haven’t been pit bulls at all.

If a member of the Ontario Liberal Party had a friend or relative run down by a drunk in a red car and banned all red cars as a response would you really feel safer or see it for what it is?

This ban has to go and as I said in a recent post the work then has to start to make us safer from dangerous dogs of all breeds or to be more accurately the factors that create dangerous dogs. I hope many on this board will be as passionate about that change happening.

In short (if it’s not already too late) I do not see this a trivial. My point is that Michael Bryant sees all attacks by breeds other than pit bulls to be trival as there is no publicity in it for him.

phoenix
April 23rd, 2006, 08:46 PM
Twodogs,
I don't want to have an argument about it. We have two different viewpoints, that's all. Mine is that a woman who is mauled should not be used as a banner for or against a cause. The fact is that a woman was dangerously hurt by dogs, one of which had to be hit with implements, shot repeatedly and hit by a car to stop him. I am shocked and appalled. That's it. No comment about BSL, or the Liberals, or anything in what I previously wrote. Simply trying to understand better. And often when these attacks happen and are reported, the story ends up as a reason to justify or oppose the bsl instead of being treated as a situation in and of itself. To make her a cause trivializes, to me, what she is going through. I wonder what her point of view on the law is right now.
The report that the woman didn't live there at that address doesn't necessarily mean the dogs did in fact live there. I'm questioning that because I wonder if they were loose, or what. It's a legitimate question and as stated earlier, not clearly reported.
Anyway, I hear your points vs. bsl. It's not a good law. As I stated earlier, this is not about breed to me anyway... it's about being clear that the focus should stay on this poor person and she should not be used as fodder for the campaigns.
For what it's worth, I think that you are right... if one breed goes, another will fill its niche in the 'dangerous dog' category. But, at the risk of fanning flames (which I don't intend to do)... You stated that the current law would not have prevented the attack...What kind of law could have prevented this from occurring?? I think that the laws can only prevent from happening again.

LL1
April 23rd, 2006, 11:03 PM
That is so sad.I am surprised the law does not include that properties/yards be locked to avoid things like this.

twodogsandacat
April 24th, 2006, 02:25 AM
That is so sad.I am surprised the law does not include that properties/yards be locked to avoid things like this.

The containment required is enough to keep the dog in. It does not require the locking of a gate so that a human can not get it.

The story also didnít mention that the woman was not legally on the property it just said she didnít live there. It shouldnít suggest any unlawful act.

The story also suggests that the dog was shot four times and then run down but other news sources are saying that the dog was run down and then shot.

All this says is that the story isnít yet fully reported, a woman is severely injured and the witnesses are probably very traumatized also.

doggy lover
April 24th, 2006, 07:16 AM
I believe that any breed of dog that would do this to a person for any reason should be pts. I don't accept this for any reason even protecting property.

LL1
April 24th, 2006, 09:15 AM
Yes I know,and it surprises me,I think securely locked so a human can not get in should be a part of it.
The containment required is enough to keep the dog in. It does not require the locking of a gate so that a human can not get it.

Maxine
April 24th, 2006, 12:53 PM
This is a sad story... I hope the women will be fine and and I hate to hear those stories....Are they sure it was a pitbull before saying it in the article?? No poodle doesnt mean pitbull for me... I agree with some, this story has something missing in it...Not clear at all! I think this is how you do it when you want people to fear everything everywhere! I don't know if what i'm saying is really clear neither right now! Anyways.. I hope they will make it more clear.
:sad:

Dukieboy
April 24th, 2006, 01:27 PM
Really terrible incident. I have to agree that there is alot missing in the reports. No mention of owners and the victim isn't named which is quite unusual. Also, the police aren't doing any further investigation. The other thing is usually they report some sort of history of the dogs you know usually a neighbour or two comments on the past behavior of the dogs or the owners.

HunterXHunter
April 24th, 2006, 02:34 PM
Holy cr@p! The police shot at one of the pitbulls 4 (FOUR!!!) times and hit it with a cruiser too!? That's insane!

My guess is the woman tried to take a shortcut by cutting thru backyards, and came across this one and the pitbulls thought it was an intruder :confused: