|
Pitbull to go to TV star’s rescue center
Owner’s mother pays $14,490 check to county
Editor’s note: This is the second in a two-part series on a trial over the fate of four pitbulls.
A reality television star is willing to take a chance on a pitbull that a judge says was most likely involved in an attack on a teen in Auburn. Tia Maria Torres, who is known for her pitbull rescue center featured on national cable television, said Friday that she thought the submissive behavior of a pitbull named Otis was enough to give him a shot at being rehabilitated. Otis and three other pitbulls, all owned by Auburn resident Daniel Coverston, were involved in a severe attack against now 18-year-old Weimar resident Joseph “JoJo” Kerschner. Kerschner was knocked down twice to the ground by the dogs. He had to receive more than 30 stitches in his body and suffered 20 puncture wounds. A second trial regarding the fate of the dogs was held Friday. Torres’ testimony coupled with that of others ultimately led Judge Richard Couzens to decide to let Otis stay at Torres’ facility on a trial basis. Torres’ testimony Torres, who is the center of the show “Pitbulls and Parolees,” testified over the phone Friday regarding her December evaluation of the four dogs. Torres runs the Villalobos Rescue Center, located on a 10-acre property in rural Southern California. Her show, documenting her rescue efforts of pitbulls and how she cares for the estimated 200 in her facility, airs on Animal Planet. Torres told Couzens that Otis was the only one of the four dogs she would consider taking into her facility. She said the dog’s withdrawn, submissive behavior made her think he might have a chance at being a better dog. She added that she was told he ran away and there was no evidence that he bit Kerschner. Otis was believed to be involved in the attack. Kerschner testified that in the midst of fighting for his life he could not remember which bites came from which dogs. Also, a witness said when they came upon the scene that Otis was standing nearby barking but not biting. “He’s got enough variables where I think he deserves a chance,” Torres said. Torres said when she heard about the aggressiveness of the other dogs the day of the attack she made a decision right away that she would not take them. “I was told one dog jumped on the car and kept coming,” Torres said. “Right there I said I’m not even going to mess with that dog.” Torres said she would comply with the court’s orders regarding what should happen with Otis. She said she would be able to acknowledge if Otis was not retrainable and ultimately needed to be euthanized. During Torres’ visit to the Auburn animal shelter she also briefly visited the other three dogs. One lunged at and bit her on the hand. She said their behavior — constant barking, growling and lunging toward their cage doors — confirmed her decision not to take them. “I’m able to step back and be a reasonable person,” Torres said. Second judge declares dogs vicious At the conclusion of the day’s testimony, Couzens said he believed that all four dogs met the standards to be labeled “vicious” dogs. He said it was “unquestionable” that the dogs caused severe injury and the attack was unprovoked. He said he was concerned about the lack of direct evidence that Otis bit Kerschner. He said there was circumstantial evidence that all four dogs took Kerschner down to the ground and that he believes it’s “more likely than not that Otis was involved in the attack and did some biting.” However, he said Otis’ behavior, which is less aggressive than the other three, deserved some consideration. “As a matter of personal consciousness to me I’d like to know the answer to how situational this is to Otis,” Couzens said. “I do not see the harm to a trial period with a trained professional.” With that, Couzens imposed strict orders including that Otis is not to leave the facility and Coverston cannot visit the dog. Couzens said only Torres or a professional staffer could contact Otis. Torres must also submit monthly reports regarding Otis’ behavior, including any acts of aggression. She also cannot transfer or dispose of the dog unless given a court order. Couzens said that Torres seemed responsible. “It strikes me that she operates in the real world,” Couzens said. In addition to those orders, Couzens directed that the other three dogs be euthanized and Coverston is not allowed to own another dog within city or county limits for the next three years. Mother signs a $14,490 check After Couzens rendered his decision Friday afternoon, Coverston’s mother, Patricia, wrote a check for $14,490.26 to Placer County Animal Services. Before she paid the bill on her son’s behalf, she told Auburn city attorney Matthew Crider, “I want to tell you I’m not a rich person and we took out an equity loan on our house to pay this.” Her son, Daniel, who was earlier wiping tears away with a tissue when he heard Couzens' decision, sat silently nearby at the respondent’s table with his hands clasped in front of his face. Jenifer Gee can be reached at jeniferg@goldcountrymedia.com.
------------ Tia Maria Torres Reality television star Tia Maria Torres testified via phone Friday in the second trial to decide the fate of four pitbulls involved in a Downtown Auburn attack. Torres’ Villalobos Rescue Center in Southern California is the subject of the Animal Planet cable TV series “Pitbulls and Parolees.” Torres said following her December evaluation of the four dogs she thought that Otis was the only one she would consider trying to rehabilitate based on his behavior. Before being deemed an expert in pitbull rescue and recovery, Torres explained to the court that she has been running the country’s largest pitbull facility for the past 15 years. Torres said the center usually houses about 200 pitbulls. She said she is also a contracted dog trainer for the city of Los Angeles and a certified handler for narcotic detective dogs. Torres roughly estimated that she’s rescued over 1,000 dogs in her 15 years at the shelter and about 95 percent of them have been rehabilitated and adoptable. Torres’ 10-acre compound also includes a small exotic animal area where she said she houses a grizzly bear, two black bears and up until recently, a Bengal tiger. She said she also has 20 wolves at her facility, which is licensed by the U.S. Department of Agriculture and Los Angeles County.
|
Change Location:
|
Chuxxr, No comments?
This is a win-win. Judge Couzens made a very responsible decision. He recognized that the 3 othetr dog were vicious without a doubt & willbe put down. The 4th shows some hope & if there is any chance of rehab within this dog, Torres' facility would be the optimum environment to bring that about. The dog will be in a safe, restricted environment several hundred miles away from Auburn. There should be no complaints from the peanut gallery that the decision doesn't go far enough.
jacrabbit: YAHOO!! & while we're at it, might as well run him out on a rail.
Auburn is more evolved than that.
Very well put 'steelybob'. And the AJ spelled it all out simply and coherently. 'jacrabbit', please take this in the kind way it is meant: you might want to reread the article - it states that there is not any proof that the 4th dog Otis was attacking or biting.....the witness states that while the other three dogs were, Otis was at the side of it all barking. As such, he deserves an opportunity to be studied. If he is truly damaged, he will be put down. And yes, I do agree with you: Coverston has made a huge error in judgment and is irresponsible, immature, and definitely lacking in integrity. Maybe if there should be any new laws passed regarding all of this, we might want to consider something along the line of catagorizing the TRAINING of dogs to be aggressive, and not just for dog fights, as criminal and against the law....(sounds like alot of open ended stuff here but we need to remember that it is the owner that has made these dogs the way they were)
I think Judge Couzens acted reasonable. If Otis doesn’t come through, he may still be euthanized. If he can be rehabilitated, he will live. What’s wrong with that?
Chuxxr, I'm waiting Chuxxr. How does the crow taste?
one more comment... yes, I agree the Judge Couzens made a wise decision trying to be fair to every interested party. I also have to hand it to Coverston’s mother, Patricia, who wrote a check for $14,490.26 to Placer County Animal Services. That dept to the count is PAID... I hope her son learned a lesson in this and next time he will be responsible for his own actions. It is time that HE takes responsibility for the problems he caused others.
We are the laughing stock of SoCal. Otis was on dogie Valiums that made him less aggressive. I have an idea let's do a drug test on Otis Man Slayer. Just think what he would have been like without them. Torres got her hand bit but it's her fault she stuck her hand in the dogs mouth (real pro) just like JoJo stuck his whole body in 4 of their mouths. COUZENS said: "“more likely than not that Otis was involved in the attack and did some biting.”".
Patrick, you wouldn't feel the same if it were one of your kids or a mom with a stroller or some elderly person because they would be dead.
The animal will bite again and again until some judge acts in a reasonable manner.
I have never met a pitbull that I didn't like except for the dangerous ones and I will admit that I really didn't like the owner.
Like I said, JoJo gets taken down and nearly killed and the dog gets a show courtesy of the citizens of Auburn and Placer County.
I have offered to bring a person that is a nationally recognized expert on vicious dog attacks. I did so well before this ruling. This person loves all animals but doesn't have a financial stake in saving the dog, Torres does.
Nice try Chuxxr.
JonGreen, go buy a clue. I almost never agree with ChuxxR but I'm standing up and applauding him today. Everyone conveniently forgets these dogs were on anti-aggressive medication before the attack which is why Coverston should never have gotten through the first trial. It should have been thrown out of court.
I'm disgusted at our justice system and the mockery the lawyer and Coverstons have made of it with this case. Thanks but no thanks on spending my taxpayer money on spoiled adults who can't take responsibility for their own actions, no make that in actions.
Anyone who can support the judges' decision after reading the testimonies of how these dogs behaved in the shelter is just plain ignoring reality.
Shame on Judge Couzens for letting a "reality" star persuade you to do something you even question whether is in the best interest of the community. What next? Trials for giving boa constrictors another chance after killling, oh no, just almost killing toddlers? After all it isn't the snakes fault the owner left the cage open.
keepingupdated: How is this not in the best interest of the community...again, the dog will be 500 miles away. Impound cost has been paid for by his mother...didn't cost usanything...now if you are talking about the cost of prosecuting...that's a non-issue...
Im with you "keepingupdated" I have been trying to pay attention to this scham since its onset, You are right on about the City and County being forced to waste tax payers money. Our Police are getting laid off but we are being forced to spend money on this crap. If this was Texas, Idaho Montana....... those dogs would never have made it to the truck that hauled them off alive, much less having a hearing to make sure the dogs rights hadent been tarnished etc. Then 2 trials ? come on, this is all rediculous. and for Coverstons Mother to pay the bill, well that says alot for the son, how about the real vitem in this case?? Is anyone talking about some compensation for his trauma?? Is Mommy gonna take care of that too? If this guy has 10k to bribe the authorities, how about coughing it up tomorrow as a good faith deposit on the Victims settlement?? unbelievable
steelybob, it sets a dangerous precedent. Did you know that if you post a "Beware of Dog" sign and your dog bites someone on your property you can be sued because the sign up posted sugggests " you knew the dog was dangerous" and posted the sign? This guy knew his dogs were dangerous, gave them anti-aggression meds, they attacked and nearly kill someone, yet he gets to save the life of one of them. Where's the common sense in any of this?
Coverston, gets what he wants without regard to his negligence. His parents are the ones who footed the bill, and well, that's their own fault. And like he's going to abide by the "no dog for 3 years" rule. He's all but admitted, he's already looking. Judge Couzens, at best, sent a wisy washy message to irresponsible dog owners out there. And who's paying TiaMariaTorres for her "rehabilitation" services and court ordered reports?
who's paying TiaMariaTorres for her "rehabilitation" services and court ordered reports?
I can answer that. No one. Not the city, not the Coverston family, not the defense attorney, not Animal Planet, not the production company. Didn't cost anyone a dime. My time for the evaluation and testimony was on my dime.
I think it`s time to outlaw this type of dog breed in this country, just like they did in Europe. Spay and neuter the ones that do exist now and eventually they will be gone.( Hopefully, all the dog fighting will be as well). Whoever does not comply, faces consequences.
Aside from the fact that people created this aggressive breed, the quality of life can`t be very high for these ainimals.
TiaMariaTorres, thanks for answering my question. At least that eliminates the finanacial conflict of interest. portion of my concerns.
I still strongly disagree with the precedent the judge is setting with this decision.
TiaMaria, These posters have made a good point about Otis being drugged to calm him down, one that I have overlooked. Is this true that Otis was under the control of a substance that may have calmed his character a bit while you were evaluating him?
If I'm not mistaken, I don't think any of the dogs were on tranquilizers when I saw them. None of them acted like they were.
keepingupdated: A trial court's factual finding does not "set a precedent" for anything. A precedent is set only when an appellate court, in a published decision, rules on a previously unresolved point of law.
Is somebody trying to pose as Tia Torres on these forums? I doubt she is going to join the AJ website just to talk to the fine posters on here. I see a lot of imposters on here creating brand new accounts with names trying to sound credible.
Patrick50/TiaMariaTorres, read the below article on the hearing about the pitbull attack. At the end, it states Coverston testified he regularly gave these dogs "anti aggression" medications/shots. This was before the attack on Jojo, not at the shelter.
http://auburnjournal.com/detail/130467.html?content_source=archive&category_id=&search_filter=pit+bull+attack+&user_id=&event_mode=&event_ts_from=&event_ts_to=&list_type=&order_by=&order_sort=&content_class=1&ub_type=stories&town_id=
gulliver, thank you for the clarification. your attention to detail certainly must help in your profession.
I question Judge Couzen's decision given the following report. : "At the conclusion of the day’s testimony, Couzens said he believed that all four dogs met the standards to be labeled “vicious” dogs. He said it was “unquestionable” that the dogs caused severe injury and the attack was unprovoked". Why do we need to go any further?
Tia:
Please come get this pooch asap, the good people here are about to organize the vigilanties....
hntndux:
Take your guns and your disgusting hunting habits elsewhere... take "flying" with you, also asap
Jab!pc:
Just for the record I am a hunter and believe in it. It is your ideas that are foreign to our community.
Dr Bill Kirby
Flying: Just for the record, I'm not particularly surprised...or interested. And whether my ideas are foreign to this community is just not the point. I know all the great white hunters feel they're performing a service, and perhaps they are...I'm not standing here to argue. I'm simply stating my disgust....dude. And again, I beg of you, please, as a public servant, rise to a higher level. I didn't vote for you, and that was before I knew you. We are hyjacking this thread...you and I.... I prefer not to.
jab!pc
Just what is your point. The only one that I have made is that any animal involved in an unprovoked attack on a human should be euthanized. I have not advocated shooting them unless they were involved in an active attack and it was the only safe way to terminate the attack. I also think that this long drawn out court drama was inappropriate and their is only one real victim here. The young man that was attacked.
I can be easily reached.
Dr Bill Kirby
home 8852124
flyingsurgeon210@yhaoo.com
Flyng:
For staters. it's jab...1...pc. Once may be accidental, twice is deliberate...and less than influential. Further, my point is, one dog has been determined to be a bystander. Earlier posts ...by you and others ... suggest immediate disbersement by a shot in the head, I find that concept disgusting and unacceptable. It's an expected thing for the general public to say such things, but it's inflamatory when said or agreed to by public official. Granted, later, somewhat smoothed by qualifying and mitagating statements, you've taken a calmer and more acceptable position. But it is difficult to undo such statements, and as a politician you should know that...that's why I say to you,... rise to higher level. And further number 2, I find hunting distasteful, recognizing of course that it's just my opinion. However, I've been a member of this community for a good long while...and calling my ideas foreign to the community...Yikes dude, maybe we should have a beer. I'm an IPA kinda guy
Jab...1...pc
Jap1pc
Perhaps my eyes aren't so good but it was not deliberate. If you are up for a beer, I will buy.
Bill Kirby
8852124
Bill...lets talk tomorrow...no need for you to buy....I may need your influence for my trip home however...I guess I could call a cab....right, from Sacramento.
Jab
Bill...Sincere apologies for suggesting any such influence...it's late...it's past my hour to lay down
jab1pc:
I think you have some valid points and I probably should not have chimed in 'agreed' when I did.
Bill Kirby
Bill,
Politically, there are some things about which we disagree. But one thing I find to be highly commendable is your readily available public stance, issuing your phone number and e-mail on numerous occasions, offering to have a late evening phone conversation, invitations to council meetings. My first thoughts were to continue our dialog by e-mail and proceeding from there as we choose. But I believe the statement made above is one that should be made in a public forum. I appreciate your willingness to make yourself available to the public. And so I offer my regards and appreciation.
Jab
jab1pc:
Thank you for your comments. I am certainly not perfect and make mistakes such as jumping in with the comment I made. I appreciate your willingness to look at the larger picture and of course to hang in there and be part of the education process. My number has been public for 30 years for my patients and is available to anyone who wants to talk to me about any subject. I will try to be open.
Bill Kirby
8852124 home
No Torres, it was on our dime. I guess you didn't notice how many people work for the court. Who is going to review the "court ordered reports"? Do they not get paid, does it not take time? Does JoJo get a cut of the profits. It was at his expense that you have gotten free publicity. I mean he really is a hero, shouldn't his story be told. Oh that's right no one is forcing you to acknowledge his injuries but you do get to profit from the attack. Answer this; the dogs were on medication right?
"If I'm not mistaken, I don't think any of the dogs were on tranquilizers when I saw them. None of them acted like they were." You know they were on tranquilizers every one knows it. How about answering the question truthfully. Your a pro right? then act like one. You stand to gain financially from this and you know it. I think the dogs should have been evaluated by someone who has no financial interest in the dogs. Your credibility stinks.
In all fairness, I don't think anyone is advocating that we go around shooting dogs. I believe we all want a community that is safe from all forms of predators. My problem with this story is the lack of personal responsibility with the dog's owner that resulted in both the attack, and the subsequent public made-for-TV circus show. Dr. Kirby showed his concern for the community with his words, and he spoke from the heart. Too bad we don't have more grownups like him in charge.
Here is another pack attack, perhaps Fontana and Auburn can get together on a dog ordinance....
"A 5-year-old California girl who was mauled along with two siblings by a pack of escaped dogs remained hospitalized Tuesday and was unable to breath on her own, police said.
The girl, whose name was not released, was walking with her mother and three siblings along train tracks when they were attacked Monday afternoon by five dogs that escaped a nearby yard by digging under a fence, said Fontana police Sgt. Jeff Decker.
One dog, a mastiff, pulled the girl from her mother's hand and "and tossed the child around like a rag doll," Decker said.
The girl suffered a punctured lung, broken ribs and numerous bites. She remained hospitalized in critical condition and was breathing with the help of a ventilator, Decker said.
Her brother, who is about 7, also remained hospitalized after needing 237 staples to close a leg wound, he said.
The girl's sister, who is about 8, was treated for leg and arm injuries, Decker said.
Shortly after the attack, police found the dogs near their home. One was shot when it attacked an officer and the other four — the mastiff and what appeared to be pit bull mixes — were taken to an animal shelter, Decker said.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2010/02/02/national/a120258S91.DTL&tsp=1
In the news article that auburnite quoted, dated February 2, 2010, it states:
"The owners, who cooperated with police, could be cited for failing to properly confine their pets but they were not immediately ticketed, he said. "My understanding is they are very sorry about what happened," Decker said."
This is insane. All the owners will get is a ticket...if even that? The vicious dog laws in this state are messed up and need to be changed to protect the citizen’s…not the vicious dogs and their irresponsible owners.
I'm sure they will have their friends say the dogs are very gentle and that they play with the neighbor kids (just like Coverstons friends said).
The owners will say that their dogs are loving and they don't know why this happened. It won't be surprising when they defend the dogs and show no concern for the victims. We've already seen this play out here.
Then…the owners will get Tia Maria Torres to save the day and rehabilitate the mastiff and pit bull mixes so they can attempt to kill (or kill) more children or maybe star in a T.V. show or movie (Tia Maria needs the money). But…there won’t be any movie or T.V. deals for the victims.
The City of Auburn needs to look at this case closely, because if they do nothing...this will happen again in Auburn. Next time…the victims will be younger as in this new case in Fontana California.
Jab, not quite sure what you find "discusting" about folks that hunt, but Im sure gonna sleep better knowing that you and Dr. Kirby have become such blokes!!
Take a look ,new attack in Fontana 2 hours ago (1 mastiff and 4 Pits) . I love all dogs but something is wrong.
hntndux: I find it to be distasteful and "disgusting". I don't eat meat and I don't kill animals. Hunters, I know, feel it's performing a service...pruning the wildlife, and maybe it is. It's not my arguement. I was and am stating an opinion. I find slinging the days catch into the back of a pick up to be nothing more than membership in a good ole boys club. I grew up in the midwest where it's much more prevalent, and I did it because you had to as a young man or you were a freek. I found it revolting then, I find revolting now. How about a level playing field, no guns, no bows, no dogs, no ATV's ( which, by the way I find to be the most disgusting part). How about hunting to feed your family.
arguement = argument...my dam spellin is jus gettin worser and worser
NEWS FLASH: Fontana, CA. MOTHER WALKING HER 4 CHILDREN ATTACKED BY MASTIFF AND 3 PITBULLS, MAULING 3 CHILDRENAND LEAVING 5-YEAR OLD GIRL IN CRITICAL CONDITION!
This is a never ending story about these dogs attacking and mauling innocent people. Maybe Judge Couzens can act as a visiting judge and let the wacko Hollyweard dog lover take those vicious and dangerous dogs away to let them survive another day to maul again!
the never ending story is about irresponsible dog OWNERS
It may be the owners too, but the vicious mastiff and pit bulls did the damage.
We need laws and regulations protecting citizens (including innocent children) against both irresponsible owners and vicious dogs (pit bulls).
If we need "laws and regulations protecting citizens (including innocent children)", we also need laws and regulations protecting foreign visitors and guilty children.
yes gulliver we need to protect all peoples from harm.
This gets better everyday. If Torres claims wolves make good pets she is sadly mistaken. Talk to the zoo lady. The wolves made a den for her when she was pregnant. She has been around them for over 40 years. I would like to see another "expert" give an opinion. Torres seeks financial gain. That's her angle.
jab1pc, you are certainly allowed to share your opinion here, thats what its for, But your first jab at me was
"Take your guns and your disgusting hunting habits elsewhere... take "flying" with you, also asap", doesnt sound like someone expressing an opinion to me.
hntndux: Right you are...apologies. Personal insults are far to common here, and among my particular dislikes about this sandbox we're all playing in.
Regards
Jab
Just saw this and thought I'd share it -
Pet owner killed by dogs after saving them from death
Wed Feb 3, 2010 1:05pm EST
LJUBLJANA (Reuters) - A Slovenian who saved his three dogs from being put down for attacking humans was himself mauled to death by them, police said Wednesday...
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6124IB20100203
Jab, ok now we can be friends too!!!, just dont ask me to eat tofu!!
Chileva: You can find just about anything these days with the world wide internet...however, it sounds like you may have come upon it by coincidence based on your name and the origin of the story. Find another one...just like it...or even similar. And then show me how it can't be blamed on the owners. Owners leave gates open, owners don't put up proper fencing, owners don't socialize and train, owners don't use proper leash control. Lets euthanize all pits...and then pit owners. This subject has reached a new low.
Hntn: Read your recent post on another thread. I don't feel like spending the time to go back over recent articiles showing Otis to be spectator... Let him/her go, If it doesn't work, I'm sure we'll all hear about it...over and over and over again
hntndux:....what....you don't like tofu.....It'll make you a better duck hunter dude. Truly, a beer with all those I've pissed off here would be great...at the very least, entertaining. I just don't know how to do that and not be threatened by drive-by shootings.
And not sure if anyone else is having display issues with this thread, but I am. It's about a freekin mile wide. None of the other posts are like this one
To jab1pc:
Pit bull escapes through gate to attack victim, pit bull digs under fence to attack victim, pit bull attacks victim (even though the owner says the pit bull was loving and played with the neighbor kids), pit bull on leash pulls owner towards victim and attacks victim, loving pit bull and family pet attacks baby... in front of owner...for no reason, three children attacked by pit bulls and mastiff (we’ll be told they were loving pit bulls and someone else must have released them from their secure enclosure).
Pit bull apologists have reached a new low. We need to regulate pit bulls as well as their ownership.
So you don't feel like spending the time to go back over recent articles showing Otis to be spectacular??? What articles are you reading? Is it Vicious Dog fighters weekly? Otis Spectacular? Spectacular at eating his bed maybe. lol
One more time ....as succinctly as possible...not about dogs...is about dog owners
One more time...it is the pit bulls that are attacking and killing people...not the owners! But I guess you are correct in one way, if you ban the ownership of pit bulls, then the pit bulls wouldn't be able to attack anyone.
samlemmons:
Please forgive my somewhat sideways drift in this post......but,....man acquires dog,...dog does not acguire man. Man leaves gate unsecured. Man does not provide adequate enclosure. Man does not train, control or properly socialize the dog. It would be regretable if we punish many dog owners for the irresponsible actions of a few. Perhaps we should license dog owners...but I doubt it.....and banning a particular breed is moving into an area where we just shouldn't be. Otis had his day in court...and judged to be a bystander. And hence, given another chance under supervision and scrutiny. So, one more time, let him have it...
At the conclusion of the day’s testimony, Couzens said he believed that all four dogs met the standards to be labeled “vicious” dogs. He said it was “unquestionable” that the dogs caused severe injury and the attack was unprovoked.
Couzens did not exclude Otis from the list of "vicious" dogs. He only said that Otis (who he listed among the four vicious pit bulls) was less vicious than the other three vicious dogs.
Couzens also said he believes it’s “more likely than not that Otis was involved in the attack and did some biting.”
Man thinks loving pit bulls are secure, but pit bulls escape. Vicious pit bulls bite, maul, and attack children (not man). Killing instinct bred into pit bulls over many years. Even responsible man cannot control killer instinct of pit bulls... this killer instinct will eventually raise its ugly head and attack or kill again.
At the risk of giving this subject a life of its own, I'd like to pass on one more bit of information.
It concerns Michael Vicks dogs. All but one were considered to be dog and human friendly and condidates for rehab. Thats 22 out of 23. Thats after being tied up and beaten...by one of the most despicable humans on Earth...and then spending several months in kennel confinement. These are dogs comletely without socializing of any kind, except for the ring. Several left the kennels almost immediately. 10 are in foster homes in CA with other dogs.
I feel the rush to judge in Auburn to be overwhelming...and I feel many current and future dog/pit owners will pay the price in unnecessary dog limits and other restrictions.
I find the pit bull apologists' concern for the welfare of vicious pit bull lives, over human life, to be inconceivable. And victims will continue to pay the price, of severe injury and death, until pit bulls and their owners are heavily regulated in California.
Now that you mention it, it will be interesting to find out if any of these pit bulls that attacked the children in Fontana California were Michael Vicks' gentle and loving puppies (that are not socialized, fresh out of the fighting ring, and released on unsuspecting California communities).
Whats inconceivable is your continued insistence that pits are by definition bad...perhaps there should be a special registration process that includes inspection of quarters as well as owners, because there clearly is a problem, (with a few slim ball owners). And then what? Dobies, Shepards, Rottys, Poodles. Show me the quarantee that his wont propogate.....talk about a police state dude, right here in Auburn
his = this
slim = slime....embarrassing...jeees louise
Yes, there clearly is a problem (the following statistics don’t include attacks on pets):
Of the 88 fatal dog attacks between 01/01/06 and 12/31/08, pit bulls were responsible for 59% (52). This is equivalent to a pit killing a U.S. citizen every 21 days. Pits make up about 5% of the U.S. dog population.
Pits alone committed 81% (13) of the off-property attacks. This indicates that pits are far more likely than any other dog breed to leave owner property and fatally attack.
Of the 13 attacks, 15% involved 1 pit; 69% involved 2; and 15% involved 3 or more. 44% (39) of all fatal attacks involved multiple dogs; 16% (14) involved chained dogs.
55% (48) of the attacks occurred to children (11 years and younger). Of children, ages 2-4 suffered the most fatalities 22% (19); ages 0-2 suffered the second most 18% (16); and ages 5-9 followed at 11% (10).
Between the ages of 0-4, 14% (12) of the fatal attacks involved a "watcher," a person such as a grandparent or babysitter watching the child. Of these attacks, 75% (9) involved a grandparent.
19% (17) of the fatality victims fell into the 21-54 age group. Pits were responsible for 82% (14) of these deaths. The frequency of pits killing adults is unmatched by any other breed. In the 3-year period, pit bulls killed more adults (ages 21 and over), 54%, than they did children (ages 11 and younger), 46%.
Of the six age group categories the 55 and older group suffered the most fatalities 26% (23).
care to share the sourse of your info....I would hazard a guess that it falls into the catagory that you can find whatever you want on the internet...... "Consumer Reports"...?
Frankly Sam, ....I don't care about your source...my recent comment to "Jeanne" in another thread was "I flat don't believe you". Shortly thereafter, her posts were removed. Have a good day..or not...don't care
Well it definitely isn't from your source, "the Vicious Dog Fighters Weekly" where you read about the spectacular Otis and his totally awesome adventures.
The source of the information is: DogsBite.org, a national dog bite victims' group dedicated to reducing serious dog attacks. Through their work, they hope to protect both people and pets from future attacks.
DogsBite.org was started by a victim of a vicious pit bull attack...and guess what...the pit bull was on a leash, held by the vicious pit's responsible owner. The pit bull dragged the responsible owner into the street to viciously attack the founder of DogsBite.org.
No doubt, they have a deservedly bad reputation. This is from a source that is friendly to pits "Unless you're prepared to work with your dog 5-10-15 minutes per day, everyday, all week, every week, all year, every year, you may want to rethink your decision to get a Pit Bull" The one single point I've been trying to make is many owners just don't get it or have what's needed to control or maintain the breed. I have no need for either of your sources listed above. You may as well consult "Consumer Reports"
5-10-15 minutes per day or even 24 hours per day won't get the killing instinct, that was bred into pit bulls, out of them. You don't even bother naming your source because you know we'd all laugh.