From SB861 BSL to Increased Bites Nationwide

New Federal Judge Vince Chhabira of  the  City Attorney’s Office  in San Francisco defended SF when the law was passed  allowing local government to pick, choose and mandate which dog breeds needed to be altered. We will recall this came after the mauling or killings in SF by large breed dogs for the most part.

SB861 was very heavily protested but despite all protests, the law passed anyway. When the lawsuit was filed in Federal Court, Chhabria mentioned to counsel that the commerce clause issue might be viable, but the case eventually ended, without discussing commerce clause viability; and the disability advocate (CHAKO) after nearly two years, entered into a stipulation that if a pitbull had met all the other requirements, it could be exempted from altering. [This was to enable one who owned a service animal which might be a pitbull, to pull a wheelchair and CHAKO stated that the dog should not be altered early.]

The case was not appealed purposely, so as not to set a precedent which would harm other cases. An example of  harm caused by filing an appeal was the concerned dog owner’s appeal filed in Los Angeles, which lost, and was then appealed…using rational basis, nearly ALL cases will lose in court.  That one case alone now means that mandated ALTERING of animals, in particular, canines, will be the NORM.

And due to the bad publicity and continued run of purported attacks by alleged pitbull type dogs in the media, which has been as of late, not good, no one is arguing that bully dogs don’t need altering, whether in fact the altering would do anything or not.

As for what circumstances are seen when dogs kill people, Delise (National canine Research Council) continues on her same path:

http://nationalcanineresearchcouncil.com/uploaded_files/tinymce/Co-occurrence%20Whitepaper%20-%202013.pdf

Of note to “us” is the fact that she keeps mentioning the dogs are not altered. Nowhere to be found, is the fact that the majority of dogs are rehomed, rescued, new to family or otherwise NOT an actual long time family owned dog from puppyhood–but instead she says: (we only name 4 of the 8)

…. “victim had no able-bodied person present to intervene” [that’s pretty stupid to even say]

victim had no familiar relationship with dog  85.2% of cases” which could mean ANYTHING…………..

“owner kept dog as resident and not as family pet”…in other words, dog did not live inside house?……

“owner prior mismanagement of dogs”…..

“owner abuse or neglect of dog…21%”  and who determined the “abuse” or “neglect”– HSUS? Delise? Animal Control? Were they convicted prior? etc.

And then she says— 4 or more of her 8 factors were involved in 80.5% of cases.

And despite media reports that blame bully dogs for nearly all of the killed people in 2013, the facts remain that the majority of killed people are usually killed by dogs that are rehomed in some fashion; with owners that know very little about dogs, and do not take adequate precautions re their animals escaping; even if not socialized, that alone does not necessarily make a dog a killer, but it would increase the possibility of biting in our opinion, only because the dog has not learned social skills;  new novice owners often  IGNORE facts such as dog-dog or dog-cat or dog-child aggression; for example, a rescued GSD was advertised for non novice owner, since he does not like other dogs; some idiot lady wanted to know was the dog good with kids because she has a daycare? Now we are looking at just plain stupid.

Many stupid people own dogs, many stupid people have no clue about dogs packing up, and many stupid people are misled by animal rights.

If you don’t want your kid or grandmother to be killed by a pack of dogs, or just one dog, make sure you yourself understand dog safety, and have your kids or family taught dog safety. Do not buy or take any rescued or rehomed dogs, and do not own a large dog. Ensure that any friends that have large dogs have trained their dogs, and find out if they are loose when your kids go to the friend’s homes? Do not go to dog parks or parks in general where dogs congregate.

Your chances of wild dogs in a pack attacking is nearly zero unless you live way way out there, and have seen them, in which case you already know to be prepared.  We have noticed that many dogs that people claim are friends’ dogs are those who own 4-5 dogs which are not trained at all, and then visitors come over to a bevy of untrained dogs running loose. Not all but many of these situations occur when elderly people believe all dogs are friendly and do not see the signs of danger.

And many of these unfortunate situations happen in areas of least economic viability, which likely means less knowledge about dog behaviors.  For example, a loose dog ran at a younger girl who actually jumped onto the roof of  a car to escape!  (Of course an athletic dog can likely jump onto the hood of a vehicle…)

Any dogs that continue to try and scale fences to get at people are potentially dangerous if only because they want to get at people [not necessarily kill them]  And what is not stated in the report, is the fact that many of these dogs had probably bitten people before.

Many people never report the fact that their dogs have bitten people.  Children are the primary victims of dog attacks (Centers for Disease Control, Dog Bite Prevention, accessed 5/25/2013). In the past decade and a half, hospitalizations because of dog bites have increased 88% (US Dept. of Health and Human Services, Hospital Admissions for Dog Bites Increase 86 Percent Over a 16-Year Period, December 1, 2010), and the number of people killed by dogs has more than doubled (Kenneth M. Phillips, Canine Homicides: July 2006 to the Present, accessed 5/25/2013)  or look at this:

A recent, somewhat painful exchange of email between a concerned parent and Attorney Kenneth Phillips illustrates vividly some of the consequences of having the wrong dog. The following is a transcript of their messages:

From the parents of 10-month-old boys who were “nipped” twice by their parents’ dog:

Hello Kenneth:

We have two 10 month old twin babies and a chow/akita mix (3 years old). This morning the dog bit one of our babies in the face (teeth barely broke surface of skin).  This is the 2nd incident of ‘nipping’.

The dog is an important part of our family.  We are considering our options. One idea would be to have the dog live outside more of the time and we would monitor the interactions of the babies and the dog closely. I believe this is unrealistic as we have 3 other kids and many activities and the ability to monitor 24/7 strikes me as impossible.

My question to you is as the babies get older and more physical, have you found that the risk of injury increases or decreases. Thank you in advance [name withheld]

Attorney Kenneth Phillips’ reply to the foregoing email message:

The answer is that yes, there is a substantial risk of a future attack or series of attacks by this dog.

A chow akita mix would be one of the most dangerous dogs in the world. These dogs were bred for guard duty and to bond with only one person in a household. In other words, they can be a threat to everyone else.

When a dog nips, he often goes on to nip harder. If he does, he then may go on to bite. That is what has started here.

Additionally, the threat is not only to your children but to you too. Throughout the USA at this minute, a number of parents are on trial for child endangerment and even homicide because they continued to own dogs that nipped their children, who eventually were seriously injured by the dogs. (See “Mother Appears for Pit Bull Hearing,” Rocky Mountain News, Dec 16, 2005.)

Furthermore, if the dog bites another kid, you will be subject not only to criminal liability but punitive damages because of your knowledge of the dog’s history.

Wait. It gets worse. If you are hit with a judgment of punitive damages, the bankruptcy court will not discharge it. In other words, you will not be able to get around it, even by declaring bankruptcy. It will ruin you financially.

There is simply no justification for keeping this dog. You can replace it with another breed that will be good for your kids and not present you with the daily threat of jail and financial ruin. Not to mention the moral issue of keeping a dog known to be dangerous. That is something that a responsible, caring person should never do.

If you need to see some photos of kids with their faces ripped off, I have them and can show them to you. They will make you sick. But you are on the road to that, and I want to help you make your decision.

You have responsibilities as a parent, and they are not to your dog. Don’t hate me for being the messenger. But it takes a village to raise a child and I have my role in all this. Do the right thing. Sorry.

Kenneth Phillips

 

WELL—- we are willing to bet the chow/akita was either rescued or obtained free.

If  number of  owned  “rehomed dogs”  have increased, due to the AR mantra of better to adopt than shop, then rehomed and rescued dogs  being given away or sold would increase the odds of biting dogs.  It many not necessarily increase the people killed by dogs.

But rehomed/rescued/shelter dogs were disproportionately represented even years ago, in the cases of people killed. Like we have long stated, if dogs that kill people are rare, and  if more than 50% of kills are done by rehomed dogs, and rehomed/rescue/shelter dogs only comprise 15% of all owned dogs, that means  it is impossible to ignore the facts—there are dogs that should not live to be owned. Biting dogs normally should be put down. Aggressive dogs, same thing. If you are not a personal professional trainer you are not really competent to claim to have rehabilitated a biting dog such that it can then be adopted to a nice family with 3 kids. Nope. And many rescues have no professional trainers, they just think they know what they are doing. Not from what we have seen.

 

 

doggy_doors01_sm

 

Advertisements