Pets.ca - Pet forum for dogs cats and humans 

-->

SUN's Worthington's JR attacked by irresponsible owner's PB

Faceless
July 6th, 2006, 05:36 PM
http://www.torontosun.com/News/Columnists/Worthington_Peter/2006/07/05/1668627.html

Wed, July 5, 2006

Pitbull attacks columnist's dog

By PETER WORTHINGTON

In a discussion on Sun-TV a while back on the ban of pit bull types of dogs, I reluctantly supported the ban because it's just not right to have an animal that threatens other animals and children.

I didn't blame the dog --bred for excessive loyalty and courage -- but facetiously (I thought) suggested that a ban on pit bull owners might be more appropriate -- even "putting them down" instead of the dog.

This touched off a rash of responses from pit bull owners testifying to the gentleness of their dogs "who wouldn't hurt a fly." Well, it wasn't flies I was concerned about, but kids and other small dogs. One lady piously wondered why I wanted to "put her down" (murder) when she'd never harmed me. That sort of stuff.

One Dianne Singer, describing herself as a proud member of the Dog Legislation Council of Canada and a proud supporter of the Banned Aid Coalition, sent a nasty letter: "Should I conclude that all your writing is as poorly researched and irresponsible as that infamous column" (on Ontario's pit bull ban). Well, stand by Ms. Singer for some first hand "research!"

When it comes to issues between people and animals, I tend to side with animals. But pit bulls are dogs with big heads, huge jaws, fearless, and are dangerous to anything that irritates them.

Even minimal research indicates their prime targets, when they go berserk, are small children and small dogs -- toy poodles, Lhasa Apsos and the like. Rarely does one hear of pit bulls attacking German shepherds, Rottweillers, Doberman pinschers.

Last summer, a couple of young guys moved into a house next to where we have a house in Wellington, west of Picton in Prince Edward County.

We had grandkids of various ages (youngest 3) running around, and an oft-publicized Jack Russell terrier (Murphy), who once got a bravery medal from the Toronto Humane Society for alerting us to a burglar breaking in one night.

With us, too, was a King Charles Spaniel (Jumble), whose sexual orientation we often debate, and a lumbering yellow Lab, (Cobber) who'd qualify for sainthood if he didn't insist on eating things like Warfrin, kitty litter and corn on the cob that sometimes require costly surgery to correct.

The new tenants had a pit bull with the menacing name of "Sniper" who frequently got loose and headed for our place. The owner was alarmingly indifferent, but when my wife, Yvonne, and daughter warned them to keep their dog away, he agreed.

I reinforced the admonition by visiting him and warning that if the dog menaced us, our grandkids or Murphy, "Sniper" would be in big trouble.

"He's not dangerous, just playful," I was assured.

"Plays with kids, don't worry, we keep him tied up." I insisted it wasn't me who had to worry, but him and his dog if it got loose.

Well, of course it got loose. Often. Once we saw it swimming in Lake Ontario near our place and diving to the bottom and fetching rocks the size of bread loaves.

A nice couple from Toronto who have the lot next to us are worried for their little girl because the pit bull has come onto their property. They'd already alerted Animal Control.

Last Thursday, as I was about to leave Toronto to go to Wellington for Canada Day, I got an alarmed phone call from Yvonne.

"Don't worry," she said, "She's going to be all right, but there was an incident."

"Who's all right?" I said, instantly alert. "Dani, Mandy, Buzzy? Are they okay? What happened?"

"No, it's Murphy -- the pit bull attacked her but the vet has stitched her up, and she'll be okay."

It seems that Yvonne was walking up our dirt road, and turned back when she saw the pit bull loose in its yard. Unfortunately, the dog saw her, and immediately charged and attacked Murphy, bowling her over and ripping a chunk from her ribs. As it wheeled to re-attack, Yvonne screamed. A young guy ran from the house yelling "Snipe, stop it!"

The pit bull paused. Yvonne scooped up the bloody Murphy, and drove frantically to the vet near Picton.

When the vet, who's owned Jack Russells, heard the story he said Prince Edward County takes dog attacks seriously "and that pit bull is history."

After half a dozen stitches, a sedated Murphy came home and Yvonne phoned Animal Control -- which knew all about the pit bull and its owner from past complaints.

A couple of animal control officers -- Shannon and supervisor Garry Davis -- came out impressively fast to get details. Another, Jim, called the next day. They took photographs of Murphy's wound and said the pit bull would be seized the minute the owner could be found.

Meanwhile the OPP were notified in Belleville and surrounding towns in case the owner and dog decided to go on the lam -- which was the case. By the time Animal Control arrived with a warrant to seize the dog, it and its handler were gone The animal control people said while they took dog attacks seriously, ever since Toronto lawyer Clayton Ruby started defending pit bull owners, convictions have become a lengthy process.

It took four months to get a conviction of an owner whose pit bull bit a cop. During the interim, the dog has to be kept at taxpayers' expense, then euthanized.

Personally, I don't blame the dog. Like pedophiles, they simply can't resist attacking what they see as weak, defenceless, easy or vulnerable. It's just the way they are -- bred that way by people who've done the breed a disservice.

Yesterday, they nabbed Sniper. "The OPP really pulled out all stops," said Garry Davis. "They knew the guy, visited his friends, and he just ran out of places to hide and turned himself and the dog into the OPP."

It turned out that the pit bull was registered to someone else, who has tentatively agreed that the dog should be euthanized.

Michael Laird is due in court on Friday to face five charges involving endangerment, mishandling the dog, improper care, etc. If convicted he'll likely be forbidden to ever own a pit bull type dog.

"I'm sorry about Murphy," said Davis, "but it was only a matter of time before that dog attacked a child, and that would have been tragic."

One wonders why people want a dog that by law must be muzzled and leashed - something "Sniper" seems rarely to have endured.

"Often people want them as a secondary defence against police," said Gary Davis. "They are owner-specific, unpredictable and often dangerous."

As for Clayton Ruby, a skilled lawyer, I'll bet his personal experience with pit bull-type dogs is limited; I doubt he's ever been victimized by one.

If this had happened in the "bad" old days, the issue of "Sniper" would have been resolved with a shotgun.

Instead, he's a victim of his breeding.

Watchdog
July 6th, 2006, 06:21 PM
A Jack Russel recieves an award for yip-yapping but a dog that can dive to the bottom of Lake Ontario and retrieve rocks the size of bread loaves gets nothing but negativity.Pitbulls alert owners and scare off thieves every day. Personally, I dont blame Worthington, like pedophiles, he just cant resist attacking what he sees as weak, defenceless, and easy or vunerable. Its just the way they are,journalists turned into cheap salesman. If this had happened in the "bad" old days the issue of Worthington would have been resolved with a 30:30 instead hes a victim of his own ignorance and cheap salesmanship.

pammydee
July 7th, 2006, 06:05 PM
Maybe Worthington would be interested in knowing that I own and a miniature weiner dog and a pitbull, both are alive and well. My pit is so submissive to him that it is unbelievable. Stevie the wiener dog is 2 and a half and the Prancer the pit is one.

greaterdane
July 7th, 2006, 06:21 PM
http://www.torontosun.com/News/Columnists/Worthington_Peter/2006/07/05/1668627.html



One wonders why people want a dog that by law must be muzzled and leashed.




This part of the article makes me ill, well the whole thing does, but this sticks out even more.

mastifflover
July 7th, 2006, 08:48 PM
Just plain ignorant but let me guess his dog is off leash all the time but acceptable because it is not a pit. But he owns a breed that bites more than a pit but because it is small it is not seen as a threat. I am sure the couple whose baby was killed by there pomeranian certainly could attest to the fact that any dog can do harm. It does not have to be a so called dangerous dog. The only difference is the damage done because of size. Yes this pit owner was irresponsible but that is not the dogs fault. Punish the owner not the dog

babyrocky1
July 7th, 2006, 10:02 PM
If people are thinking of writing into the sun again, which I am not, but if you are, try the Editor instead of Worthington, I dont know what happened to the over 100 letters that one of our groups sent last time, but i do know they werent printed. Sorry I don't have a link. This guy is just the lowest scum ever, well we all know who the exeptions are, but geeze its nice to know that the OPP has nothing better to do than track down a pit bull that gave a JRT a few stiches. :rolleyes:
Its an interesting contrast of how our authorities treat those of "priveledge and influence" compared to the rest of us.
And those of us who are "pit bull" owners can pretty much figure out were we fit in the chain. :mad:

mastifflover
July 8th, 2006, 05:34 AM
And those of us who are "pit bull" owners can pretty much figure out were we fit in the chain.
Well I hope you know that is not the way we feel about responsible pit owners like yourself.

les
July 8th, 2006, 09:08 AM
but geeze its nice to know that the OPP has nothing better to do than track down a pit bull that gave a JRT a few stiches

Yeah cause they're such great dogs to have around and it MUST have been the JRT's fault that he got attacked and too bad for you JR with your half a dozen stiches ... but ohhh the poor pitbull that attacked you!! (to those you don't know ... note the sarcasm)

Sorry but no, it's not just a "few stiches" - you ever had your dog attacked? Cause I have - and no it wasn't a pitbull and it has never been serious enough to cause blood and it STILL messed my pup up.

Maybe the writer is an idiot but comments like that make you appear the same IMO.

babyrocky1
July 8th, 2006, 12:54 PM
My point was that if the dog only had a few stitches, which is what the writer said, then it probably wasnt an "attack"
If his dog were truly "attacked" then I would have extreme sympathy, even for this low life, as I wouldnt wish this on anyone. Certainly, I still feel for the little dog, even if his injurys were not severe. This should not result in the pit bull being killed, which it surely will, had it been another breed, only a muzzle order MIGHT be given, hopefully a responsible owner would pay the vet bills...but this is now a death sentence for the "bullie," Dogs fight, it happens, If the owner of the Pit Bll were responsible, the dog would not have been on the loose, we all agree with that.
It is possible that this was a serious attack, but given the description by the writer, the writers history when describing "facts", the writers previous attempts at "baiting us, and also the writers musing about having US executed, I read this particular article with a certain perspective, as you might imagine.

There is a history here which you may or may not have been aware. However, this is a public forum and many people do read it and not post, so I will thankyou for bringing this post to my attention and giving me an opportunity to clarify. Please remember that many of us have been having these discussions for years, so we know were one another is coming from in the context of all of their posts. People that know me here, would know that I have compassion for all the animals involved. My contempt for Worthington, doesnt diminsh my compassion for his pet, however, the consequences for this are diar compared with the severity of the incident. I am sorry that your dog was attacked, but I think that this incident is also colouring the way that you are responding to me.

babyrocky1
July 8th, 2006, 01:11 PM
And those of us who are "pit bull" owners can pretty much figure out were we fit in the chain.
Well I hope you know that is not the way we feel about responsible pit owners like yourself.
Thanks Mastifflover, I needed that today LOL

les
July 8th, 2006, 01:15 PM
How many stiches to YOU qualifies as an attack? Not 6 I guess ... 10 ??? 20?? 100?? Maybe it takes the JR to be killed for it to be an attack?

My dog got attacked by another dog and she had NO stiches ... that was still an attack.

Here's the definition of attack for your reference:

Main Entry: 1atĚtack
Pronunciation: &-'tak
Function: verb
Etymology: Middle French attaquer, from Old Italian *estaccare to attach, from stacca stake, of Germanic origin; akin to Old English staca
transitive verb
1 : to set upon or work against forcefully


So yeah, THAT WAS an attack. Blaming the victim or trying to imply it wasn't serious doesn't help your case too much.

And yeah the owner of the pitbull is at fault but the poor little dog payed the price and that's not fair either.

Is my judgement coloured? Probably a little but like I said it wasn't a pitbull that attacked my dog. It was a golden retriever! Which is even worse because I always assume them to be friendly! There aren't many pitbulls in my town (that I know of anyways) but we did play with one last summer before all these crazy laws were in effect and the 3 of them (my 2 and the pitbull) played fine together and there was even a ball involved!

So, I don't disagree with your stance on pitbulls or the laws ... they're really stupid .. because that golden should be muzzled and he isn't and the friendly pitbull is ... it makes no sense at all - I just would never down play an attack when it happens.

babyrocky1
July 8th, 2006, 02:47 PM
How many stiches to YOU qualifies as an attack? Not 6 I guess ... 10 ??? 20?? 100?? Maybe it takes the JR to be killed for it to be an attack?

My dog got attacked by another dog and she had NO stiches ... that was still an attack.

Here's the definition of attack for your reference:

Main Entry: 1atĚtack
Pronunciation: &-'tak
Function: verb
Etymology: Middle French attaquer, from Old Italian *estaccare to attach, from stacca stake, of Germanic origin; akin to Old English staca
transitive verb
1 : to set upon or work against forcefully


So yeah, THAT WAS an attack. Blaming the victim or trying to imply it wasn't serious doesn't help your case too much.

.
I thought I had clarified this enough but apparantly not. First I never blamed the "victim" the victim is the dog. (JRT)
Second, Im not playing it down, but I believe he (Wothington) is playing it up. Yes I made an offhanded comment, however, as I was trying to explain, it was made in the context of this particular forum, "among friends" so to speak. whom I dont usually have to explain myself as I believe they know me to be a caring person. My reactions come out of the frustration of this man deliberately misinforming people about "pit bulls and their owners, Im not that interested in the dictionarys explanation of "attack" I am responding to what Worhtingtons descriptions of attack has been in the past. RECENT past, and according to him and his description of "pit bulls" there would be no way his JRT would have survived an "attack" by a pit bull. Remember this man misrepresents facts sooo how do we know what happended between two dogs. We have his word. Read his recent articles and then judge what happened. If I am gramatically incorrect in my questioning of the word "attack" then I most humbly apologise. Try understanding the "spirit" of the post instead of the "letter" I have not insulted you or your posts, please extend me the same courtesy.

les
July 8th, 2006, 03:07 PM
I never meant to insult you or your posts either, I was just pointing out that IMHO, it was an attack =)

We're on the same side of the war. :)

babyrocky1
July 8th, 2006, 03:15 PM
I never meant to insult you or your posts either, I was just pointing out that IMHO, it was an attack =)

We're on the same side of the war. :) Yikes I posted my post before I read yours LOL

Yes we are on the same side! I do see that!
:sorry:

jeannieh
July 11th, 2006, 10:48 AM
Thank you

Faceless

mastifflover
July 11th, 2006, 01:01 PM
If it is not the dogs fault then there are lots of people that are in the wrong.
'
Yes there are a lot of dog owners who suck at there job. That is not the dogs fault and when they are abused it is not there fault.When they are abandonded by someone who got bored because the dog was no longer a puppy, that is not the dogs fault. I feel the same way about parenting there are plenty of sad excuses for parents when there kids commit crimes people certainly will make exceptions for them. Parents who raise criminals should be held responsible for their actions until they are old enough to go to prison. Just as dog owners should be held responsible for there dogs but I do not need to be told what type of dog I may or may not own.

The people that hate are right here on this site.

Well if you face the ignorance of people who kick your dog or throw cigarettes at your dog or I who do not own one of these breeds have had a bottle thrown at my dog from a moving car because they thought he was a pit bull. Now tell me who hates we have become this way because of ignorance most people who do not even know what a pit or staff look like you listen to the ravings of a bad politician. Who by the way is such an authority he could not pick out a pit bull in a line up. The media only reports dog attacks that sell papers they never tell you about the lab who attacked the child and ripped half his face off.

PS I guess the ****zu that bit me should have been put down

mastifflover
July 11th, 2006, 01:32 PM
I agree Schwinn totally uneducated and ignorant. By the way small dogs are not the most abused but are some of the worst behaved dogs I have ever met. Is that about the dogs or the owners I ask?

Luvmypit
July 11th, 2006, 05:02 PM
Les wrote
"Yeah cause they're such great dogs to have around and it MUST have been the JRT's fault that he got attacked and too bad for you JR with your half a dozen stiches ... but ohhh the poor pitbull that attacked you!! (to those you don't know ... note the sarcasm)"
So if its sarcasm then am I to assume you don't like these dogs? I mean you said cause there just such wonderful dogs to be around? and added a note to remind us in a pit bull forum that you are being sarcastic. I could be wrong and took it out of context..

i just wish people would really understand why are backs are up against a wall. Unfortunantly they dont have to defend their dog probably ever or looked at funny or hear a journalist (this same journalist, worthington)suggest that we owners be put down... That is pretty serious stuff.... So excuse us if we question a journalist who has said very serious comments about us...
Im sorry but im in an aweful mood today and am not letting much slide today....

les
July 11th, 2006, 05:22 PM
Sorry - I must have been in a bad mood that day ...

No, I don't not like them - I just don't like when the excuse is it wasn't an attack because it was. Not to say other dogs don't attack, cause they do.
And I really didn't realize what an idiot the writer was before hand.

That's all I meant by it and I shouldn't have really been that sarcastic ... :sorry:

jeannieh
July 11th, 2006, 09:20 PM
Thank you for proving my point.

jeannieh and the small dogs

Schwinn
July 11th, 2006, 09:24 PM
Just returning the favour, my friend.

babyrocky1
July 11th, 2006, 11:28 PM
Wow...I wonder what Ive missed here, somehow I think i can fill in the blanks LOL!

Luvmypit
July 12th, 2006, 01:26 PM
Shes a banned user now so no worries.

Sorry les also. I figured you didn't mean it but we are slightly sensitive as a group. We never want to come off as the people who don't care about dog attacks. We are dog lovers first so any attack on any dog is heart breaking!