Owners are responsible when their dogs attack

Pits in the news and info on Breed Specific Legislation.

Postby cheekymunkee » January 31st, 2007, 11:29 am

Owners are responsible when their dogs attack
Wednesday, January 31, 2007

THREE TIMES in three months, dogs have attacked people in south Alabama. Two men were injured, one seriously. And on Sunday, a child died and her brother was injured.

Sometimes, all that can be done legally is to charge the owners with allowing dogs to run loose or failing to immunize for rabies. Where such laws do not exist-- often in rural or unincorporated areas -- they should be implemented.

Most important, when a dog viciously attacks a human being, euthanization should be mandatory. It may take a court order for due process, but if an unprovoked attack with a significant injury to a human is proven, or a child is significantly injured under any circumstance, the dog should be put to death.



The Rottweiler that killed 18-month-old Taylor Kittlica in her own yard near Brewton was quickly confiscated by the Escambia County Humane Society and euthanized by a local veterinarian. The family says the dog was a stray taken in and tied up in the yard. The child's 2-year-old brother suffered minor injuries.

In December, two dogs -- a pit bull and a boxer -- attacked 54-year-old Charles Bridges in his own yard on Dauphin Island. When the dogs charged arriving police, both were shot and one was killed instantly. Mr. Bridges was treated at a hospital and released.

In November, a hound and a pit-bull mix attacked 66-year-old Robert Maddox of Semmes. Mr. Maddox was hospitalized.

Debates about vicious dogs often focus on pit bulls, which all too often are bred to be fighters. Other breeds, including Rottweilers, have aggressive tendencies. But as these three cases show, vicious dogs can't be eliminated by banning one breed, although some U.S. cities have banned pit bulls.

A ban on pit bulls in Alabama is not the sort of thing likely to get past a local county commission or city council, let alone the Legislature. And many owners swear that if they are properly raised and trained, pit bulls are gentle.
But if an owner insists on keeping any dog, the owner is responsible for ensuring that the dog does not present a danger to other people. Dog owners, not governments or police, are responsible for raising and training their dogs and, where necessary, keeping them safely confined on a leash or behind a fence.

Even then, as the death of the little girl in Escambia County tragically proves, attacks can occur when a dog is confined in a yard or tied up. An unknown dog, such as a stray, or a dog that is of a breed known to be aggressive deserves special caution and treatment.

Insurance companies are within their rights to raise homeowners' premiums for policy holders who keep pit bulls or other aggressive breeds, as some companies have done. Again, dog owners must accept and be responsible for the risk.

Some dog owners might suggest that particular breeds are part of the Southern culture or that in rural areas, it doesn't matter if their dogs run loose. But nothing justifies keeping a dog that attacks people. If dog owners won't or can't prevent such attacks, police and animal control authorities must have the legal tools to deal with the consequences.

http://www.al.com/opinion/mobileregiste ... xml&coll=3
There's a fine line between genius and insanity. I have erased this line.

Debby
User avatar
cheekymunkee
I Have Your Grass
 
Posts: 28540
Location: Dallas

Return to Pit Bull news and BSL

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users

cron