Posted on 10/22/2010 8:10:34 PM PDT by Chet 99
Redding animal regulation officers Thursday took two pit bulls from an apartment after the dogs allegedly attacked a man in a wheelchair while he was taking his dog out.
Animal regulation officers and Redding police were called to Roanoke Avenue in Redding’s Martin Luther King Jr. neighborhood about 1:45 p.m. after several reports of dogs attacking people.
Witnesses said 57-year-old Charles Osborn, who lives on Roanoke Avenue, was taking his dog outside when the two pit bulls got loose from an apartment on the 1800 block of Roanoke.
Several neighbors said Osborn suffered scratches to his arms and was bloodied because he was trying to protect his dog from the pit bulls, who pulled the man out of his wheelchair.
A medic en route to the hospital reported over his radio that Osborn suffered bite marks on his arm and an injury to his ankle.
Animal regulation Capt. Lee Anne Smith said Osborn suffered punctures and lacerations to his hands, left wrist and right forearm while protecting his dog and fighting off the pit bulls.
Osborn’s dog was not seriously injured, Smith said. That dog’s breed wasn’t known.
Neighbors said the owner pulled the pit bulls off Osborn and took them back to the apartment.
The owner cooperated while officers loaded the dogs into an animal regulation van.
Officer Kenneth Zachman took the dogs to Haven Humane Society for a 10-day quarantine, mandated by public health standards, he said.
Zachman said he’d been to the apartment once before for an incident involving one of the pit bulls.
Smith said the pit bulls will be held until they’re released to the owner or the city holds a dangerous dog hearing, which could be next month.
“They will remain here until we can decide what to with them,” Smith said.
At least two dangerous dog warnings have been issued for the pit bulls in the past, she said.
'Pitbulls' have only existed as such since the very late 1800s. tool.
Okay..however you say young lady. You are young. My Grand’s are well up on your type of speak. Why are you so angry? Again..........what is so wrong about being young??!! Enjoy it for cryin’ out loud! 28 or 29....My God you are a child, tke it easy for darn sake’s!
oldenuff2no loves to go on and on about the integrity of a dog’s instinct, but neglects to acknowledge that if a dog is bred for pit fighting, it must also be bred to avoid biting a man.
No, pit bulls just magically inherit a taste for human blood, despite what they were bred for. Every other dog remains true to it’s roots, but not the pit bull.
I love chimichangas! I’m eatin’ one right now...
A pitbull on wheels...The greatest threat ever in the history of time, obviously.
Keep it up, Joe.
“I think pitbulls and probably rottweilers should require a permit like exotic animals.”
I’m not generally in favor of anything that requires the creation of more bureaucracy, more taxes, more government control, and more restriction of liberty.
“you just used a lot of works and totally ignored all of the instinct that has been bred into these dogs.”
Well, a dog acting viciously solely based on instinct is a result of improper training or abuse, which I did cover in my post. You assert that pits are less intelligent and harder to train than many breeds, but that only means it takes more effort to train them properly. It’s unfortunate that many of their owners don’t take that extra effort, but that is solely the fault of the owners, not the animal.
Exotic animal licenses already exist so applying them to pits and rotties would not create another layer of bureaucracy. It would require an interest in reducing fatalities and maimings.
If I can sum up what I am seeing here on this thread:
Pitbull owners feel that society should adjust and accept the disproportionate fatalities and maimings caused by pitbulls.
While deaths and maimings from pitbulls cost our society financially and personally, pitbull owners feel that they should be exempt from addressing these issues or submitting to additional measures to try to bring the fatality level down. They just don’t care and don’t want to hear about it.
It makes them angry when others discuss it.
Statistics, the experience of dog trainers, the experience of the military which apply to these dogs should be considered invalid if some people own a pitbull who hasn’t attacked anyone yet.
Anyone who thinks otherwise is stupid, irrational, ignorant or a ‘tool’.
“Exotic animal licenses already exist so applying them to pits and rotties would not create another layer of bureaucracy.”
Due to the sheer numbers of pits compared to authentically exotic animals, it would at the very least require a large expansion of that bureaucracy, which would require more revenue to run, which would require more taxes/fees to fund.
Also, the idea of applying “exotic” animal licenses to an animal that is anything but exotic in the United States smacks of cognitive dissonance to me.
There are costs involved in treating those who are maimed, burying those who are killed etc. I think some people would not buy a pitbull if they understood that they require special enclosures and training to handle them. They unknowingly buy a dog they can’t handle and put it in a pen it can escape.
A young friend of mine said his pitbull pulled up or apart any fence he built so he had to give up and let the dog roam the property. Usually the dog attacks and fatalities result from animals roaming free.
If only motorcyclists must have, and pay for, a motorcycle license, then only those who own animals that require regulation should pay for that regulation.
So the pitbull population would go down as only those capable of handling and boarding them and paying for them have them. At present - the hidden costs of owning a pitbull is unfairly diffused over the general population.
I am not concerned with ‘cognitive dissonance’; the term exotic in this case it would to the animal’s unusual handling and boarding requirements.
“There are costs involved in treating those who are maimed, burying those who are killed etc.”
True, but those are private costs, and not public costs that must be paid by the taxpayers.
“A young friend of mine said his pitbull pulled up or apart any fence he built so he had to give up and let the dog roam the property.”
That’s a perfect example of a person who doesn’t take the responsibility for properly training the animal with the seriousness that it demands. Plenty of pit bulls don’t engage in the behavior of pulling apart fences, so the behavior in this instance is obviously a result of lax training.
“If only motorcyclists must have, and pay for, a motorcycle license, then only those who own animals that require regulation should pay for that regulation.”
I don’t believe in the need for motorcycle licenses, so that argument for regulation isn’t winning me over.
Now, I see your point about the general population suffering the consequences of irresponsible pit bull owners, but the same could be said of the general population suffering the consequences of irresponsible firearm owners. Does that mean we should require registration and regulation of all firearms, making it purposefully burdensome to possess them, in order to lessen the amount of firearms in the hands of irresponsible people? Well, plenty of governments have tried that approach, and I think we all know how that has turned out. The irresponsible will still be irresponsible, and only the responsible will comply, while the general population still suffers the consequences of the irresponsible people. The better approach is to punish the irresponsible people harshly, to deter the behavior by making an example of them to others who would be irresponsible. This approach serves to lessen the burden on both the general population and the responsible citizens. It’s a win-win!
I dont’ think punishing irresponsible owners is working - people are still being killed or maimed (isn’t that deterrent enough?) and the pitbull owners still don’t care and offer no alternatives.
“I dont’ think punishing irresponsible owners is working”
Well, I’d argue we’re not punishing them to the extent where a deterrent effect would be produced. Destroying the animal and levelling a fine or civil judgement is not much deterrent against the most irresponsible owners, who are usually either too poor to collect from, or deriving their income from criminal sources which allow them to shrug off such expenses. Like I said before, if a person is killed or injured as a result of an irresponsible owner, then we need to punish the owner as if they were negligent with a deadly weapon, and if that is not enough deterrent, we need to increase the penalties.
well, okay.
“You need to take a reading comprehension class.”
Was that personal insult really called for? It certainly doesn’t add anything to your argument.
“Instinct that is born into an animal has absolutely nothing to do with training. That instinct can be enhanced or even modified but can never be taken out of that animal!!!!!”
Well, you just contradicted the assertion of the first sentence in your second sentence, proving even you don’t actually believe the assertion. How do you really hope to convince anyone else with an agurment like that?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.