Pit bull fatally mauls 9-month-old in bouncy chair

New York Post ^ | May 31, 2018 | By Joshua Rhett Miller

[Phillyred]

Forgot my sarcasm tag.

[kanawa]

After all these years you're still as dense as ever, lol.

How could you possibly read that post and come to the conclusion that I'm "advocating against our Second Amendment".

For the record, I don't own a 'pit bull'. He passed away a year ago this month. Here is one of the last photos of him...

This is my present dog, Gizmo saying good-bye to his big buddy...

I'm grateful to you for posting this thread because not only does it give me the opportunity to advocate for Responsible Dog Ownership
but also allows me to honor my dog and share good memories... it ameliorates the pain of my loss somewhat.

To get back to your original mistaken allegation...

In my post I was not advocating against the 2nd A.
I was pointing out that like owning a dog, owning a firearm comes with the responsibility to keep it under your control.
I am advocating for Responsible Ownership.

You want to argue rates that are inherently difficult to determine without knowing the denominator (the total number of the class under investigation),
while I'm concerned about individual deaths and how to prevent them.
The numbers in the article show that the number of child deaths due to improperly CONTAINED/CONTROLLED firearms is larger
than that of improperly CONTAINED/CONTROLLED dogs. It's a simple fact.

The salient point though is that every death is equally painful to the parents and equally preventable by being RESPONSIBLE.

Have a Nice Day

[Socon-Econ]

Even a Doberman wouldn’t have done that.

[lakecumberlandvet]

Reality check: all pit bulls are not bad. In my experience, a dog’s behavior is most often a reflection of its owner, its treatment and its environment.

[kanawa]

You’re trying to convince people who’ve had bad experiences with pit bulls and owners of pit bulls, me included.

What is it you think I'm trying to convince you of in post #52

I thought it was that supervising young children around dogs is important.....and you have a problem with that??

People have property rights sometimes that property is dogs.

With that right comes the condition that you be a responsible dog owner. Your right to own a dog only extends to the point where it doesn't infringe on others' rights.

[kanawa]

Thank you for your balanced and informative post.

[RinaseaofDs]

In the societal pecking order, it’s pets over children. More now than ever.

She’s probably relieved she doesn’t have to do the full 18 year parenting gig.

Have a funeral, collect some swag, back to Tinder.

[familyop]

"The numbers in the article show that the number of child deaths due to improperly CONTAINED/CONTROLLED firearms is larger than that of improperly CONTAINED/CONTROLLED dogs. It's a simple fact."

Again, there are hundreds of millions of firearms in the U.S.A. and far fewer pit bulls. There are firearms in most households by far (common knowledge down here).

It's illegal for potheads, criminals and adjudicated mental incompetents to possess firearms here in the States, but firearms are easy to hide.

Pit bulls aren't so easy to hide. If it were illegal for potheads, criminals and adjudicated mental incompetents to own pit bulls, then pit bulls would be nearly nonexistent. Thanks for the good idea. People's rights to own pit bulls could be on a par with their rights to own tigers and just as conditional.

We're willing to accept the risks that come with our Second Amendment, because the costs of neglecting our right to keep and bear arms would be much higher. Most people who own dangerous animals are only violating the rights of others.

Anyone for a trip to the zoo? Maybe we'll see a pit bull there.

[Clutch Martin]

My favorite scenario, and one that I have seen played out on more on several occasions is the young child of the family say a five-year-old, walk in the family Pitbull on a crowded Beach. I can’t believe that somebody would actually allow that or that nothing is ever said. My wife, who has been attacked by a junkyard dog in the past, trust dogs about as far as she can throw them.

We do however, have a miniature long-haired Chihuahua who’s very socialized, loves people, loves other animals, but is very different around kids less Than 3 years old. At some point in my dog’s life some little kid got a handful of fur and that dog does not like little kids.

So I have to watch her. But I will never ever owned a weaponized dog. I need a dog that is going to alert me to a problem and I become the weaponized individual in the house. Not the dog.

[familyop]

"Reality check: all pit bulls are not bad."

All of 'em, eh?

[familyop]

"But I will never ever owned a weaponized dog. I need a dog that is going to alert me to a problem and I become the weaponized individual in the house. Not the dog."

Perfectly smart! Owners of dangerous dogs don't realize their risks.

[mewzilla]

I know what infanticide is.

[kanawa]

Again, there are hundreds of millions of firearms in the U.S.A. and far fewer pit bulls.

So what!? It's not a frikken contest.

It's about saving lives by being responsible whether with your dog or your gun.

Don't you care just as much about the children killed with improperly contained/controlled guns
as you do about those killed by improperly contained/controlled dogs?
I'm going to go out on a limb and say Yes, of course, you do.

I am pointing out to you that the remedy in both cases is exercising your PERSONAL RESPONSIBILTY.
NOT banning guns or dogs.

(And don't get me started on alcohol and the deaths irresponsible usage of it causes....)

Freedom necessarily comes with risks and with responsibilities.
You can not have Freedom without Responsibility.
That means not letting your right to freedom interfere with the rights of others,
and, unless you're living in a fairyland, coming to terms with the fact that some will indeed and unavoidably abuse their freedom.

By exercising our responsibility we can limit the risk and number of negative consequences, but we can NEVER eliminate all risk while maintaining our Freedom.

Part of our responsibility is to ensure our community has laws that help reduce risk.
In the case of dogs, good ideas include licensing for ownership or breeding, mandatory training, laws prohibiting free-roaming dogs and,
off-leash dogs in areas not designated as off-leash areas, mandates on proper fencing to Contain your dog.

All these requirements though are meaningless unless backed up by consequences that have teeth, by rigorous and effective Animal Control response to violators.
Too many times AC is called and nothing is done to address the problem, only to have them called back later to deal with a tragedy.

We each have a responsibility to our community to ensure these things are in place and actively, rigorously and effectively being implemented.

Have a Nice Day

[kanawa]

...I have seen played out on more on several occasions is
the young child of the family say a five-year-old, walking the family Pitbull on a crowded Beach.
I can’t believe that somebody would actually allow that or that nothing is ever said

That pisses me off too.
No one should have the leash of any dog that isn't big/strong enough to maintain control of the dog.
Completely irresponsible behavior.

The rest of your post is informative and helpful as well.

[kanawa]

Good points, eastforker.

[kanawa]

Sorry, but it appeared as though you didn’t.

[Freestate316]

Exactly! We have a 25 pound Corgi that barks like a maniac if someone gets near our property, but she couldn’t do much damage if she ever attacked someone.

[Morpheus2009]

Was the dog unfixed?

[Norski]

THE PIT BULL LOBBY

Excerpt from Pit Bulls – Five Part Series , La Presse, Montreal
Investigative report on the Montreal pit bull ban and the influence of the pit bull lobby
By Marie-Claude Malboeuf, August 13, 2017

English translation: plus.lapresse.ca
French: Qui Veut Sauver Les Pitbulls
Also see: http://blog.dogsbite.org/2016/10/montreal-pit-bull-ban-veterinary-report-pit-bull-lobby.html

WHO IS PULLING THE STRINGS? The US pet industry is worth 16 billion dollars. Without pit bulls to sell, to rescue, to rehabilitate, to care for and to feed, a lot of people would see their revenues plunge, denounced Jeffrey Borchardt, who lost his baby when he was torn from the arms of his babysitter by two pit bulls. Since this tragedy, the American DJ and other victims have worked to expose the gears of the powerful pit bull promotion lobby. Who pulls the strings? Portrait of a tightly woven network.

Level one: Financing source
ANIMAL FARM FOUNDATION
Run by an American millionaire, Animal Farm Foundation has for its motto: “Equality for pit bulls.” The pressure group devotes itself entirely to combatting against any regulation targeting its dogs. After inheriting a fortune from her father, Jane Berkey, who also owns a literary agency, turned over at least $6 million to her group, $2.85 million in 2013, according to government records. She pays 9 employees (one of whom, the director, makes more than $100,000 a year) and finances numerous groups that share her philosophy.

Level two: The researchers
NATIONAL CANINE RESEARCH COUNCIL (NCRC)
To produce studies, AFF bought a private research body in 2007. The acquisition was kept secret until the victims’ group Dogsbite discovered this during litigation. The National Canine Research Council (NCRC) was created by a veterinary technician, Karen Delise. Neither an academic researcher nor a veterinarian, she self proclaims as the “greatest national expert on deaths caused by dog bites.” An “action fund” permits the organization to engage in lobbying, according to a government registration. The NCRC is linked to several advisors and consultants. This is the case for Gary Patronek, the veterinarian who co-signs (NCRC) studies, and in the case of the Page ~ 16 former chief animal control officer of Calgary, Bill Bruce, who was still employed in that civil service job at the time he accepted his association with NCRC. The agency already had consultant Glen Bui on board, whose heavy criminal record can be found online (illegal weapon possession, obstruction of justice, domestic violence and harassment). Still, thanks to millions from Animal Farm, the NCRC finances like-minded researchers—notably on the issue of identification of pit bulls, information available on their website.

Level 3: Publication
JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN VETERINARY MEDICAL ASSOCIATION (JAVMA)
The American Veterinary Medical Association publishes NCRC studies in its journal. On its own website it proposes sample letters [for readers to write] contesting any law aimed at pit bulls. Moreover, its site has a link to AFF. The Association added the following introduction to a famous 2000 study: “In contrast to what has been reported in the news media, the data contained within this report CANNOT be used to infer any breed-specific risk for dog bite fatalities. [To reach that conclusion] it would be necessary to know the numbers of each breed currently residing in the United States. Such information is not available.” Even if they are opposed to a breed ban, for practical reasons amongst others, the authors of the study—seasoned in the ministry for Health and government institutions—nevertheless concluded: “In spite of potential bias and the lack of data on the canine population, pit bulls seem to be implicated in 42% of fatal tragedies. We do not believe that in the United States, the proportion of pit bulls amongst the dog population even comes near to approaching 42%. We therefore believe that the disproportion of deaths associated with pit bulls is real and escalating.”

Level 4: The political lobby
BEST FRIENDS ANIMAL SOCIETY
The studies of the AFF network allow [lobby] groups to put pressure on politicians. They propose regulations [they favor] and try to overturn those they dislike. Sometimes with success. The central facts about Best Friends Animal Society are that it manages $60 million and has for its motto: “Save them all,” for it is opposed to all euthanizing of animals. Its senior advocate, Ledy VanKavage sits on the board of AFF. The website of Best Friends Animal Society indicates that she paid an ex-economist from the tobacco Page ~ 17 industry, John Dunham, to create a fiscal calculation scheme designed to advise governments on the cost of breed banning. [Dunham’s] calculations were attacked in the Texas Tribune in 2011. The following year, before a referendum on pit bulls in Miami-Dade, a government committee discovered that the real costs incurred in targeting dogs was 65 times lower than those claimed by Dunham. “With all its money, the lobby [can afford to] finance lawyers and harass elected officials. And if it doesn’t get what it wants, it threatens to finance the campaign of their political opponents!” denounces Angela Provo, whose son Beau Rutledge was killed by a family pit bull.

Level 5: The distributors
THE ANIMAL CARE INDUSTRY
All the lobby studies are abundantly distributed by animal-based companies like shelters, breeders, trainers, etc. In Montreal, they are [distributed] by, amongst others, the SPCA, whose mission is to avoid euthanizing dogs and whose two most senior executives are themselves owners of pit bulls. On social media, pit bull owners deploy these studies relentlessly and accuse all their opponents of ignorance. Certain more aggressive ones have even threatened the mayor of Quebec City with death. Unfortunately, some militant activists have come to a tragic end, killed by their own fighting dogs—notably Darla Napora, at the time 8 months pregnant (California, 2011) and Rebecca Carey (Georgia, 2012)

[kanawa]