Another pit bull attack, link inside....

[jrmasm]

what if there is no fence? can they go and get the ball then, or is that trespassing also? what if they are running and accidently step on someone elses property? is that trespassing? or does there have to be a fence to be trespassing? i need answers people.

In this case, the dog was contained in a yard and child opened the gate. That is what matters.

But to answer your question, yes those are examples of trespassing. A fence is not required. But you knew that didn't you?


Let's turn this around for a second, had the child gotten permission from the home owner to enter the yard and the dog bit him, that would be a whole other can of worms. Or if the child didn't have permission and opened the gate and the dog got out and was wrong over by car wouldn't the child be responsible? Would you really say 'Eh, that's what kids do'?

 

[sha_lyn]

According to the Clifton study, pit bulls, Rottweilers, Presa Canarios and their mixes are responsible for 74% of attacks that were included in the study,

No need for me to go any further. It's not all recorded attacks, but just the ones the author wanted to include

 

[mickeyboat]

Well now I don't like to talk for talking's sake, so I decided to do a little research.

I thought this was interesting:

Here's the link to the site where I found the information.
http://www.dogbitelaw.com/PAGES/statistics.html

Here is a link to the Clifton study. There is an interesting table at the beginning.

http://www.dogbitelaw.com/Dog Attacks 1982 to 2006 Clifton.pdf

 

[CathrynRose]

what if there is no fence? can they go and get the ball then, or is that trespassing also? what if they are running and accidently step on someone elses property? is that trespassing? or does there have to be a fence to be trespassing? i need answers people.

Then any dog shouldnt be loose in a yard - correct? This has been discussed here several times.

So we've got posters moaning that Pits should be in fenced yard. This woman clearly has a fenced yard, which little punk kids, who had taunted this dog, then opened the gate and we're still questioning this dog?? Gimme a break.

Did you watch the video and check out the little old frail woman who owned it?? Vicious!!! Beastly!!!

 

[mom2boys77]

Yes you should still ask permission.

what if there is no fence, and they have to walk past the ball to get to your door and then ask you for permission? is it still trespassing to just grab the ball, or should they still go to the door, even if that involves more "trespassing". now can you see my dilemma?

 

[CathrynRose]

No need for me to go any further. It's not all recorded attacks, but just the ones the author wanted to include

Bingo!!!

 

[kirbsam]

Then any dog shouldnt be loose in a yard - correct? This has been discussed here several times.

So we've got posters moaning that Pits should be in fenced yard. This woman clearly has a fenced yard, which little punk kids, who had taunted this dog, then opened the gate and we're still questioning this dog?? Gimme a break.

Did you watch the video and check out the little old frail woman who owned it?? Vicious!!! Beastly!!!

but what about those electronic fence things? technically that is still fenced in. now i am really confused.

 

[CathrynRose]

Ooooo!! Is it stat time???

My personal favorite:

Media Bias: The Pit Bull Paparazzi
Consider how the media reported four incidents that happened between August 18th and August 21st, 2007.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A study by the National Canine Research Council reveals biased reporting by the media, its devastating consequences for dogs and the toll it takes on public safety.

Consider how the media reported four incidents that happened between August 18th and August 21st:


August 18, 2007 - A Labrador mix attacked a 70-year-old man sending him to the hospital in critical condition. Police officers arrived at the scene and the dog was shot after charging the officers. This incident was reported in one article and only in the local paper.


August 19, 2007 - A 16-month old child received fatal head and neck injuries after being attacked by a mixed breed dog. This attack was reported two times by the local paper only.


August 20, 2007 - A 6-year-old boy was hospitalized after having his ear torn off and receiving severe bites to the head by a medium-sized mixed breed dog. This attack was reported in one article and only in the local paper.


August 21, 2007 - A 59-year-old woman was attacked in her home by two Pit bulls and was hospitalized with severe injuries.

This attack was reported in over two hundred and thirty articles in national and international newspapers, as well as major television news networks, including CNN, MSNBC and FOX.

"Clearly a fatal dog attack by an unremarkable breed is not as newsworthy as a non-fatal attack by a pit bull" says Karen Delise, researcher for the National Canine Research Council.

People routinely cite media coverage as “proof” that pit bulls are more dangerous than other dogs. Costly and ineffective public policy decisions are being made on the basis of such "proof". While this biased reporting is not only lethal to an entire population of dogs; sensationalized media coverage endangers the public by misleading them about the real factors in canine aggression.

www.nationalcanineresearchcouncil.com

Dogs bite every single day. You only hear about these because you all seem to gobble it all up. Yum Yum.

 

[CathrynRose]

but what about those electronic fence things? technically that is still fenced in. now i am really confused.

Gimme a break. Its property that isnt yours. You walk into someone elses yard with an animal, its on you. Picket Fenced, Electric Fenced or Barb Wired.

 

[Donnie Joe Diser]

No need for me to go any further. It's not all recorded attacks, but just the ones the author wanted to include

Well, now I can see you dismissing a study you don't like and saying it doesn't count because it is a quetionable source. Here's a pretty reputable one on...the CDC. Data's a little old, but still a little startling.

http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/duip/dogbreeds.pdf

 

[punkin]

God, not another pit bull thread....Can we please just agree to disagree on the matter and stop clogging up the boards with every pit bull mauling story.

 

[mom2boys77]

I have to add that when I was 5 my mom took me to someone's house that had a German Shepherd..the dog was, according to the owner, friendly..well the dog bit me. We had permission to be there. In that case the owner and her dog were completely wrong.Even though I have been terrified of most dogs since then, I still don't think EVERY German Shephard is evil. But I have always taught my children to respect other people's property the same way we want people to respect ours. That means not even stepping a little baby toe in their yard without permission. You also do not taunt animals ever and you don't pet a strange animal without the owner there to give permission.

Yes you should still ask permission.

 

[CathrynRose]

Well, now I can see you dismissing a study you don't like and saying it doesn't count because it is a quetionable source. Here's a pretty reputable one on...the CDC. Data's a little old, but still a little startling.

http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/duip/dogbreeds.pdf

Not startling - since the CDC has since pulled that study, saying it wasnt accurate as it was using 'eyewitness accounts' and lumping too many into the "Pit" category.

 

[mom2boys77]

Are you for real????

but what about those electronic fence things? technically that is still fenced in. now i am really confused.

 

[mickeyboat]

I am guessing that the victims of a pit bull attack don't really care if there is a media bias, do they?

 

[Nomi]

I am guessing that the victims of a pit bull attack don't really care if there is a media bias, do they?

Neither do the victims of Labrador attacks, Golden Retriever attacks, poodle attacks, ect. Your point?

 

[sha_lyn]

Well, now I can see you dismissing a study you don't like and saying it doesn't count because it is a quetionable source. Here's a pretty reputable one on...the CDC. Data's a little old, but still a little startling.

love the "pit bull type" phrasing in the chart. Probably includes all 20+ breeds that are misidentified as "pits".

Wish i could find the study now, I used to refer to it a lot on these threads but thoses thread are long gone and my computer crashed.
I forget the yr span, but the no 1 dog reported in emergency rooms and to authroties for non-fatal bites was the cocker spaniel for several yrs in a row. I believe the stats were for the mid to late 90's.

 

[Donnie Joe Diser]

Not startling - since the CDC has since pulled that study, saying it wasnt accurate as it was using 'eyewitness accounts' and lumping too many into the "Pit" category.

When exactly was that. The link is still in this page that was put up in September of 2007.

http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/duip/biteprevention.htm

 

[mickeyboat]

Neither do the victims of Labrador attacks, Golden Retriever attacks, poodle attacks, ect. Your point?

Those victims are a lot less likely to be killed or maimed because they are not bred to kill or maim and their bodies are not designed to kill or maim.

 

[Kathi OD]

No need for me to go any further. It's not all recorded attacks, but just the ones the author wanted to include

Bingo!!!

And how did you come to that conclusion? Did you read the report? If so, I fail to see how you came to that conclusion.

http://www.dogbitelaw.com/Dog Attacks 1982 to 2006 Clifton.pdf

Dog attack deaths and maimings, U.S. & Canada
September 1982 to November 13, 2006
– Merritt Clifton --

Reports are logged as received, and the current log is printed out as requested. Compiled by the editor of ANIMAL PEOPLE from press accounts since 1982, this table covers only attacks by dogs of clearly identified breed type or ancestry, as designated by animal control officers or others with evident expertise, who have been kept as pets. Due to the exclusion of dogs whose breed type may be uncertain, this is by no means a complete list of fatal and otherwise serious dog attacks. Attacks by police dogs, guard dogs, and dogs trained specifically to fight are also excluded. "Attacks doing bodily harm" includes all fatalities, maimings, and other injuries requiring extensive hospital treatment. "Maimings" includes permanent disfigurement or loss of a limb. Where there is an asterisk (*), please see footnotes. If there are more "attacks" than "victims," it means that there were multiple dogs involved in some attacks. If the numbers of "victims" does not equal the numbers of "deaths" and "maimings," it means that some of the victims -- in attacks in which some people were killed or maimed -- were not killed or maimed.

Seems to me that the only attacks that were deliberately left out were those by dogs who were trained to attack and those whose breed could not be determined. I would think that those would be exactly the kinds of attacks that should not be included.

As I said, keep on drinking the KoolAid. You'll change your tune when one of your own is the victimm of an unprovoked attack by one of these sweet, gentle killing machines.