Tiny terrier saved kids from pit bulls

[mosca]

Originally Posted by Rigs11

And if you had been paying attention I never stated that banning the breed was the answer.

Good to hear. My remarks about banning the breed are directed at those who support that viewpoint.
I agree with you on what you said regarding owners guidelines, training, registration etc. But I'm not necessarily in favor of neighborhood ordinances prohibiting ownership of the dogs.

[Popps]

My bad. I said earlier we got through the weekend without a PB attack. I was wrong...

Houston boy gets more than 200 stitches after pit bull bite

By KEVIN MORAN
Copyright 2007 Houston Chronicle

TOOLS
Email
Get section feed
Print
Subscribe NOW
Comments
Recommend (3)
A 6-year-old Houston boy spent three hours in surgery Sunday after being bitten in the face by a pit bull, his father said today.

"They stopped counting (stitches) at about 200," Brandon Palomo said, referring to repairs surgeons did on the face of his son, Logan Palomo, between noon and about 3 p.m. Sunday.

Logan was visiting his mother at her northwest Harris County home late Saturday when the dog bit him two or three times in the face, the father said.

The boy was listed in good condition at Memorial Hermann Hospital-The Medical Center today, a spokeswoman said.

The incident occurred in the 7300 block of Legacy Pines Drive off of Barker Cypress Road, said Sgt. Dana Wolfe of the Harris County Sheriff's Department.

Harris County Animal Control officials went to the residence after deputies responded to the call but did not take the dog into custody because it is not a stray, Wolfe said.

The dog belong's to a male roommate of the mother's boyfriend, Wolfe said. Because the man was not charged with any crime, Wolfe declined to release the dog owner's name.

The mother's account of the incident correlated with the father's, according to sheriff's reports.

Wolfe said the mother told deputies that the boy was playing with the dog when it bit him.

Logan's father said he understands the dog is to be checked for rabies.

Logan suffered one or more bites on the left side of his face and at least one on the right side at about 11:45 p.m. Saturday, his father said.

The left-side wound "looked like a puzzle piece missing" from his son's face, said Palomo, 26, a landscaping worker.

On the right side, the dog's teeth pierced Logan's face mainly above the eyebrow, narrowly missing a tear duct, the father said.

Although the wounds were "gorey" and required stitches in layers to repair, Logan was lucky, the father said.

"All these lacerations are around the eyes and nothing happened to the eyeballs," the father said.

There was little or no bone damage as well, he said.

Palomo said his son told him he was heading for bed and was trying to hug the dog good-night when it suddenly bit him.

The dog "rapidly chomped on him two or three times," Palomo said, his son told him. "It happened real fast."

He and his son live with Palomo's grandfather in the 1100 block of Louise in Houston's Heights area, the father said.

Palomo said he and Logan's mother are still married but have been separated for about three years.


No switch, though... right? Normal dogs rip the faces off of kids when they try to hug them.

[Popps]

Subsequent article, following attack... in favor of a ban.....



he Chronicle informs us of yet another child attacked by a pit bull (fortunately, unlike the other recently publicized attack, this child lived):

A 6-year-old Houston boy spent three hours in surgery Sunday after being bitten in the face by a pit bull, his father said today.

“They stopped counting (stitches) at about 200,” Brandon Palomo said, referring to repairs surgeons did on the face of his son, Logan Palomo, between noon and about 3 p.m. Sunday.

Knowing that this will infuriate the pit bull owners, is it time to ask the question: Should possession of these animals be banned?

What harm would come to society if these dogs no longer existed? Is there some organism on the food chain (other than 6 year old boys) which would propagate to unhealthy proportions without the culling skills of pit bulls?

I am not swayed by pit bull owners who say these dogs are just like other dogs, but are discriminated against. The problem with this argument is that it is false. Even the simplest of research reveals that studies consistently find that a single breed of dog is responsible for more attacks than any other. Guess what that breed is?

Studies show that pit bulls are the breed most responsible for incidents of dog bites, committing between 30% and 50% of all dog attacks. The studies also show that they commit twice to four times the attacks of the next most vicious dog breed. (Anecdotally, I spoke to a police officer who told me that, during his career, well over 90% of dog attacks he personally responded to involved pit bulls.)

So it is not just adverse publicity that makes it seem like pit bulls are more dangerous - it is the facts that show this to be true.

Neither am I impressed by the argument that pit bulls can be great pets, but they require more training, socialization and human interaction than most dogs. That is actually an argument in favor of getting rid of them. If they can’t be relied upon not to kill you without undergoing special training and treatment, why in the world would they be allowed to roam free?

With respect, pit bull owners are not the folks who should decide the fate of this breed. Dog owners, like parents, are protective of their “children.” They say, and truly believe, that there is nothing wrong with their animals, that it is the victim’s fault, or that it is a conspiracy by pit bull haters to paint their animals in a bad light. In fact, a government study suggested that pit bull owners frequently don’t tell the truth when asked about the history of their dogs. They often deny or minimize prior incidents which could be harbingers of future tragedies. In fact, the study suggests that neighbors and acquaintances are far better sources of accurate information about the dog’s behavior than the owners themselves.

On the other hand, some owners of pits involved in attacks can claim, with no evidence to the contrary, that their animals were always loving, gentle creatures who never before exhibited dangerous tendencies. If this is true, isn’t it all the more reason to ban or restrict this breed? After all, if the animal is so unpredictable and volatile that it could attack “out of the blue,” do we really want it chasing frisbees at the back yard barbeque?

A country neighbor of mine is a pit bull owner who trains his dogs to hunt and kill wild hogs. That pit has also been known to kill neighborhood pets. But my neighbor tells me the dog would never hurt a human. That’s what most pit bull owners say - including owners of dogs who attack people. (Though we are friendly, my neighbor is aware that his pits are subject to summary execution if found on my property.)

Rightly or wrongly, many countries and local governments have enacted legislation prohibiting the possession of these dogs. The UK banned the animals in 1991, under something called the Dangerous Dogs Act. Norway long ago banned most pit variants; France has restrictions on who can own them and requires them to be neutered. Harlem, Bronx and Yonkers, NY, instituted bans within the last year. Denver banned the dogs in 2005, as did Queens, NY. Bans have been proposed in the last year in such diverse places as New York City, Tupelo, MS and Richland, Washington.

Based on my personal experience and research on the issue, I have no qualms about any governing jurisdiction considering a ban on these animals in the interest of public safety. This is not because they occasionally bite people - every breed of dog has done this - but because they have proven to be the most dangerous, far and away ahead of any other type of dog. And, the wounds left from such an attack are more severe than those left by most dogs. (This is not just a matter of personal freedom. A man’s rights to do as he please end when his activities endanger others.)

So, you pit bull owners about to blow a gasket, your mission (should you choose to accept it) is to tell the rest of us: (1) Why you own a pit bull despite objective evidence showing them to be far more dangerous than other breeds of dog; (2) Why you could not do without a pit bull just fine; (3) Why you oppose a ban or severe restrictions on ownership of this breed of dog. As an alternative to a ban, would you support civil and criminal liability as to owners of pit bulls who injure others?


One thing this author didn't mention, is that restrictions on breeding is not "cruel." Dogs that were never born can never be fought, caged, or euthanized because they attacked a child.

[mosca]

Originally Posted by Popps

quoted from article: "So, you pit bull owners about to blow a gasket, your mission (should you choose to accept it) is to tell the rest of us: (1) Why you own a pit bull despite objective evidence showing them to be far more dangerous than other breeds of dog; (2) Why you could not do without a pit bull just fine; (3) Why you oppose a ban or severe restrictions on ownership of this breed of dog. As an alternative to a ban, would you support civil and criminal liability as to owners of pit bulls who injure others?"

1)I don't own a pit bull or any dog currently - mainly because I don't have a house with a large enclosed backyard. If I were to own a dog, a pit bull would be near the top of my list. The "objective evidence" of them being far more dangerous presented here runs contrary to the personal experiences I have had with well-behaved pit bulls owned by friends and family. If I did own one (or another large breed) I'd be extra cautious if small children or very elderly people were in the household. I notice that many dog attacks are focused on those demographics.

2) I, or anyone, certainly can do without a pit bull just fine. Same could be said for any dog breed or household pet. They are companions, not a necessity.

3)My reasons for opposing a ban or severe restrictions I've already stated. I have no problem with the civil and criminal liability alternative, not only regarding pit bulls but all breeds.

[Beantown Bronco]

Originally Posted by mosca

Boxers have been responsible for 3 deaths between 1979-1998, according to the same data. Labradors, 5.

You are proving Popps' point and you don't even realize it....3 deaths in 20 years at the hands of boxers. Friggin' dachshunds probably have more notches on their respective doghouses than that.

[kamakazi_kal]

Originally Posted by Popps

I was bitten probably 4-5 times as a kid. Still loved dogs. (Still do.)

The difference? None of them was a Pit Bull attack. (See the photos above for the difference between having your hand snapped at and your face nearly torn off.)



That helps.

What also helps is not owning a family pet that can tear the face off of your kid at any minute, because the kid said "no" to it or something.

sorry to break it to ya but that dog in your avatar fits your discription.

[kamakazi_kal]

Originally Posted by Popps

Capability and probability are two different things.

Great Danes have the "capability" to kill someone in minutes. Yet, they never do.

An abused Boxer might snap at you, like any other dog. But, if you understand the breed, you know they're no more of a threat than a Lab might be.

In other words, they won't sleep in your bed... then get up and kill your sister or tear the face off of your 9 year old girl.

There's a reason you don't hear about other dog breeds doing this stuff... and YOU DO hear about PBs doing it.

your an idiot

[kamakazi_kal]

Originally Posted by Popps

Jake, for the record... I haven't seen a single story that mis-reported the dog, and most include pics, including the little girl attack above. I'm not saying it can't happen, but I'd suspect that it's nowhere near a "majority."

thats cause when a story is mis-reported it gets a little "im sorry" paragraph in the back of the paper.

[orange 4 life]

Originally Posted by Rigs11

So let me get this straight. All the news reports are biased against pits. All the records on pit bull attacks are wrong.And pits are less aggressive than labs.All this based on your dogs? Again, do a google for pit bull attacks and read about the switch that you say doesn't exist.

go back and read the rest of my posts. im not gonna go through it all again, and you dont have anything "straight".
actually, youre completely off base, but whatever floats your boat.

[orange 4 life]

Originally Posted by Popps

No switch, though... right? Normal dogs rip the faces off of kids when they try to hug them.

sorry popps, but im fvvking sick of all these stories.
ive seen TONS of these stories before, and MOST of the time when i dig further some or all of it is bull****.

no, there's no damn switch, and no one ive ever met has ever seen what youre posting happen.
never seen it, never knew anyone that saw it, and thats THOUSANDS of dogs we're talking about.
im not buying it.

you dont live here, but if you did, you wouldve posted the "pitbull viciously attacks child in his own backyard."

thats what was reported.
in reality, it was an amstaff/mastiff mix, it was abused and neglected, the boys mother is now in jail for animal and child abuse, and the boy took a nose dive on top of the dog when he jumped on it from top of a fence.
just a TAD different from the original story, yet you wouldnt know that from google, as the story was never amended.
they did at least report (many days later) that the mother was going down for child and animal abuse, but that doesnt cut it for me. how many people used that story just like youre using this one?

kaz is right, this is a useless fight. too many people are caught up in the hysteria, and nothing short of blood is gonna settle them down. most of them anyway.

[orange 4 life]

Originally Posted by Popps

So, you pit bull owners about to blow a gasket, your mission (should you choose to accept it) is to tell the rest of us: (1) Why you own a pit bull despite objective evidence showing them to be far more dangerous than other breeds of dog; (2) Why you could not do without a pit bull just fine; (3) Why you oppose a ban or severe restrictions on ownership of this breed of dog. As an alternative to a ban, would you support civil and criminal liability as to owners of pit bulls who injure others?[/I]

1) because most of the evidence is complete hogwash, and through THOUSANDS of dogs (many directly, and some indirectly) that ive been associated with, ive NEVER seen or heard of an attack. not one.

2) because the look that my dogs give me could melt butter, and because i cant imagine living life knowing that no one (including me in he future) will have the pure joy of seeing that because the breed will be killed off. the APBT is by far the greatest breed of dog ive ever been around, and being that we worked with shelters and even fostered dogs, ive been around 'em all. theyre smart, loving, loyal, and theyre part of our family. i wouldnt be "just fine" without them because their love for us is completely unconditional, and that love deserves to be returned.

3) why would i oppose a ban? seriously? wow. okay, ill play. because it would kill off countless good dogs. would i support "civil and criminal liability"? abso-fvvkking-lutely. its what ive been talking about this whole time. swift and severe punishments to these backyard breeders and tough guy owners and theyll be scared enough to stop letting their 12 year old take the dog for a walk. theyll check that gate twice. theyll take the time to train the dog properly, or they will GO TO JAIL!! i would LOVE to see the laws ammended to take care of these a-holes that are responsible for killing off a breed of dog that at one time had a wonderful reputation in this country.

[Beantown Bronco]

Originally Posted by orange 4 life

1) because most of the evidence is complete hogwash, and through THOUSANDS of dogs (many directly, and some indirectly) that ive been associated with, ive NEVER seen or heard of an attack. not one.

I don't normally mind a little exaggeration here and there....but, c'mon....are you saying that you have been accociated with thousands of pits, or just thousands of dogs (not that I believe either number, but I'm curious). If you are saying thousands of dogs, and not pits, what exactly is your argument? That pits haven't attacked those thousands of dogs?

[orange 4 life]

Originally Posted by Beantown Bronco

I don't normally mind a little exaggeration here and there....but, c'mon....are you saying that you have been accociated with thousands of pits, or just thousands of dogs (not that I believe either number, but I'm curious). If you are saying thousands of dogs, and not pits, what exactly is your argument? That pits haven't attacked those thousands of dogs?

we've worked with animal shelters for years. we fostered dogs.
we've been trying to work almost exclusively with pits for the last 4 years.
why would you not believe that number?

also, in working with the other people at the shelters, you of course talk about your experiences hence the use of the word "indirectly". between my experiences and theirs, its at least hundreds, and probably 4 figures.

not ONCE did ANY of us see a pitbull attack. ever.

[Popps]

Originally Posted by orange 4 life

1) because most of the evidence is complete hogwash.

See, like the article said.. it's just hard for the general public to accept the word of one enthusiastic Pit bull owner over (literally) daily news stories.

Man, dog hurt escaping pit bull
July 3, 2007
Article Tools
E-mail
Print
Single page view
Reprints
Reader feedback
text size:

DELAND - -A DeLand man cut his leg and hands Sunday jumping a fence to escape a lunging pit bull that attacked his poodle.

The attack occurred two days after a Texas woman was fatally mauled by a pit bull while visiting family in Deltona.

Willie Williams, 58, said he was walking his poodle along South Florida Avenue about 11:30 a.m. when the bigger dog got free from behind a chain-link fence.




The pit bull snatched the poodle from Williams' hands and carried it off by the tail, Williams said Monday.

Williams said he chased the brown-and-white pit bull and freed his dog just before the pit bull turned on him.

Williams cut himself when he jumped a 4-foot-tall spiked gate surrounding a nearby retirement center, according to a DeLand Police Department report.

The report said the poodle suffered minor injuries.


We hear it every day, Jake. I showed you an article with a Pit bull THAT KILLED A WOMAN in their own home yesterday... WITH A PHOTO OF THE DOG, and you still say it's just bogus.

So, no offense, man... but at a certain point, people sort of start doubting the word of one Pit bull owner over a barrage of news stories.

[Popps]

Originally Posted by orange 4 life

not ONCE did ANY of us see a pitbull attack. ever.

Not saying I don't believe you, Jake... but let's just say that it sounds fishy.

I mean, I see dog fights almost every time I go to the dog park.

1000 of ANY breed, and you're going to have an occasional fight or attack.
You're saying that NONE of the dogs you've ever encountered were anything but perfect angels? C'mon, bro.

I rescued and fostered ONE Pit bull. It was a sweet dog, but it did attack a dog at the dog park pretty good and I had to pull it off of it or she probably would have done real damage.

One Pit bull.... one problem. You're saying that you've somehow lucked into ONE THOUSAND Pit bulls that not only defy their breed image, but defy DOG image, as well?

You have to understand why people are sort of scratching their head a little, here.

I suppose you just got very, very, very lucky and even with NORMAL dogs, those results are almost unheard of.

[Beantown Bronco]

Originally Posted by orange 4 life

we've worked with animal shelters for years. we fostered dogs.
we've been trying to work almost exclusively with pits for the last 4 years.
why would you not believe that number?

Easy. First, half this thread has been dedicated to the argument that the purebred pit is actually a somewhat rare breed (mixes on the other hand....). Now we have one person saying that they have been in contact with 1,000s of these rare dogs long enough to speak about their history and essentially "certify" that none of these thousands has ever attacked another person.

How is that NOT hard to believe. It's kind of like saying that you are a mechanic that has worked on 1,000s of rare cars and can say with absolute certainty that none of them had any problems prior to the time it was brought into your shop. I'm just not buying it.

Originally Posted by orange 4 life

not ONCE did ANY of us see a pitbull attack. ever.

Just because I have never personally witnessed a shooting doesn't mean they don't happen daily less than a mile or two from where I work every day.

[Popps]

Originally Posted by Beantown Bronco

Just because I have never personally witnessed a shooting doesn't mean they don't happen daily less than a mile or two from where I work every day.

More to the point, if the news reports that gang members shoot people every day in their neighborhoods... do we assume that the news media is fabricating the reports? Do we assume that it's "hysteria?"

I doubt it. Rather, we'd probably assume that gangs were a problem.

Yet, we should assume that countless daily reports of Pit bull attacks are all invalid?

There's a huge gap of reasoning going on there.

[kamakazi_kal]

Today’s media is filled with sensational headlines of dog attacks. Routinely quoted in these newspaper accounts are dated statistics from the Centers for Disease Control. The last CDC study released documented which breeds of dogs caused the most human fatalities from 1979 through 1998. While the CDC did an admirable job of studying fatal dog attacks, and went to great lengths to point out that irresponsible owners were the cause of most of these incidents, the media and lawmakers continue to use CDC statistics to substantiate claims that certain breeds of dogs are inherently more "vicious" than other breeds.

It is necessary to emphasize that a fatal dog attack is an exceptionally rare event, yet many communities and cities believe that the solution to prevent severe and fatal dog attacks is to label, restrict or ban certain breeds of dogs as potentially dangerous. If the breed of dog was the primary or sole determining factor in a fatal dog attack, it would necessarily stand to reason that since there are literally millions of Rottweilers, Pit Bulls and German Shepherd Dogs in the United States, there would have to be countless more than an approximate 20-25 human fatalities per year. Since only an infinitesimal number of any breed is implicated in a human fatality, it is not only unreasonable to characterize this as a specific breed behavior by which judge an entire population of dogs, it also does little to prevent fatal or severe dog attacks as the real causes and events that contribute to a fatal attack are masked by the issue of breed and not seriously addressed.

From 1965 - 2001, there have been at least 36 different breeds/types of dog that have been involved in a fatal attack in the United States. (This number rises to at least 52 breeds/types when surveying fatal attacks worldwide). We are increasingly becoming a society that has less and less tolerance and understanding of natural canine behaviors. Breed specific behaviors that have been respected and selected for over the centuries are now often viewed as unnatural or dangerous. Dogs have throughout the centuries served as protectors and guardians of our property, possessions and families. Dogs have also been used for thousands of years to track, chase and hunt both large and small animals. These natural and selected-for canine behaviors seem to now eliciting fear, shock and a sense of distrust among many people.

There seems to be an ever growing expectation of a "behaviorally homogenized" dog - "Benji" in the shape of a Rottweiler. Breeds of dogs with greater protection instincts or an elevated prey-drive are often unfairly viewed as "aggressive or dangerous". No breed of dog is inherently vicious, as all breeds of dogs were created and are maintained exclusively to serve and co-exist with humans. The problem exists not within the breed of dog, but rather within the owners that fail to control, supervise, maintain and properly train the breed of dog they choose to keep.

Any dog, regardless of breed, is only as dangerous as his/her owner allows it to be.

This study was conducted not to determine which breeds of dogs caused fatalities, but rather to examine the circumstances and events that precipitated an attack. Knowing how many Pit Bulls or Rottweilers caused a human fatality has little applicable value, only when examining each case individually can we hope to gain insight into the HUMAN and CANINE behaviors that contributed to these tragic events. Only when we become more knowledgeable, humane and responsible in our treatment of dogs can we hope to prevent future tragedies

[Beantown Bronco]

Originally Posted by kamakazi_kal

Any dog, regardless of breed, is only as dangerous as his/her owner allows it to be.

I simply don't subscribe to this belief. Much like humans, no matter how you raise them, no matter how much training/education/love/etc. you give them.....at any given time, any one of them can attack. For my money, it's all about the percentage chance that any one breed would be likely to attack and do damage vs. another.

There is a reason insurance companies won't cover homeowners that own certain breeds of dogs.....and that's good enough for me.

[kamakazi_kal]

really.......i have a pitbull and so does the house across the street, their is a shepard at the end of the street and a boxer next to him........

i'm covered by insurance, in california no less.

[kamakazi_kal]

[QUOTE=Beantown Bronco;1636296]I simply don't subscribe to this belief. QUOTE]

well then i guess we agree to disagree.

[Popps]

The bottom line is... there's one tiny sect of society trying to refute the mounting evidence against PBs (and related breeds/mixes)... and that's the owners.

The rest of the free world has no patience for this stuff, nor the desire to pontificate about who's fault it REALLY was when a 6 year old gets her face ripped off, or a woman is killed inside her own home by a family "pet."

People don't want cute slogans and rhetoric, they just want it to go away.

Like I said, if we stop breeding ALL dogs because our society is too goddamned ignorant to handle the responsibility, fine by me. It's more humane to the humans and its more humane to the dogs.

[kamakazi_kal]

To start, pit bull is not a breed of dog, it’s a term typically used to group 3 breeds of dog, the American Pit Bull Terrier (ABPT), American Staffordshire Terrier (AMSTAFF) and the

Staffordshire Bull Terrier (STAFFIE).



The Pit Bull is probably the most misunderstood dog in the United States. People see them and cross the street out of fear and try to ban them from their cities. Why? Simply stated, lack of education on the breeds. The public only sees negative stories in the news. Pit Bulls are wonderful dogs in the hands of responsible owners just like any other breed. As with any dog, there will always be irresponsible owners and poorly bred dogs. That does NOT mean that all of these dogs are evil! The majority of domestic violence in the US is caused by men, are all men considered evil and dangerous, No. Then why would all Pit Bulls be dangerous because of a few bad owners?

For hundreds of years Pit Bulls were bred to fight dogs, certain traits were bred into the bloodlines for that purpose, high pain tolerance, high prey drive, etc. However a quality that was never bred into Pit Bulls was human aggression. Human "aggressive" dogs were undesirable as these dogs required extensive handling prior to and during their fights AND most of these dogs were also family pets so no human aggression was ever tolerated. Dogs that exhibited human aggression were typically killed, meaning that only human friendly lines were perpetuated and desired.

It has been said that a Pit Bull never met a stranger. They love and adore humans. They want so much to be apart of your family and spend time with you watching TV, walking, driving, etc. I have seen severely abused and neglected Pit Bulls who see you coming and they can't wait to be petted and loved. Even after the abuse, they want nothing more than to be with a family of their own! As with any breed there are exceptions to the normal temperament and behavior. We see this in humans as well, there are good ones and bad ones.



So please, take a moment to learn about Pit Bulls and you will fall in love with the breed.

[Popps]

Originally Posted by kamakazi_kal

To start, pit bull is not a breed of dog, it’s a term typically used to group 3 breeds of dog, the American Pit Bull Terrier (ABPT), American Staffordshire Terrier (AMSTAFF) and the

Staffordshire Bull Terrier (STAFFIE).

We've been over that a number of times, here. That doesn't mean that those breeds, INCLUDING the APBT isn't dangerous.

[kamakazi_kal]

some positive press, not that any of you will care to read it.

http://www.understand-a-bull.com/Pos...itivepress.htm