 |
'Dog bites boy' is not news but 'boy bites dog' is headline news. An 11-year-old boy bit a pitbull after the dog attacked him in his uncle's backyard.
Gabriel Almeida is an an 11-year old boy who has managed to grab the media spotlight. Why? He is the boy who bit the dog.
Gabriel was playing in his uncle's backyard in the city of Belo Horizonte when he was attacked by a pit bull named Tita. The dog bit Gabriel on the left arm.
Gabriel grabbed Tita by the neck and bit him back.
A group of stonemasons who were working nearby chased the dog away before it could attack again.
The boy lost a tooth in the encounter.
-
Lucky he escaped
-
@ Chris V. (cgull)
Lucky he escaped
it was indeed a close encounter. -
It could be funny if it hadn't been so dangerous.
Hope the boy is OK.
The dog, well it got some of what it deserved.
-
@ Cynthia T. [Picasso]
It could be funny if it hadn't been so dangerous.
Hope the boy is OK.
The dog, well it got some of what it deserved.
True, if the dog had not been frightened away this could have been much worse, for the boy. -
-
@ JustaDawg
Wow,so much for those tired old myths about those dogs known as "Pit Bulls" eh?
Welcome to DJ JustaDawg.
One of my sons has a Pit Bull. Whenever I go to his house the dog does have to be restrained. Why? Because that dog "knows" that I came just to see him and he wants to get on my lap and lick me to death. :) -
he wants to get on my lap and lick me to death. :)
Yeah there is a lot of that going around.
Good thing they can`t read.
They might start thinking that being clowns,liking belly rubs,squeaky toys and lap sitting is somehow abnormal.
After this kid enjoys his 15 minutes of fame for foolishly biting a dog,I hope his parents or caretaker explain to him how to act or react around dogs.
And I hope the owner of the dog is fined and gets the message that ALL dogs should be leashed and under control by their owner.
His/her actions have just hurt all Responsible owners and their dogs. -
We have a pit bull two doors down that is always off it's leash. Freaks me out.
The county animal control specialist says he actually met the dog. Said it is very friendly, but if I ever see it off the leash again to call him right away. He said no matter how friendly they are pit bulls can be unpredictable and once they get the taste of blood they will be more aggressive.
-
The way I have seen them as besides my son having one so does a grandson have two. They are friendly if they know you or you are there with the owners. Not so friendly if they don't know you.
As JustaDawg said they should be on a leash if they are out of the house or a fenced yard.
-
He said no matter how friendly they are pit bulls can be unpredictable and once they get the taste of blood they will be more aggressive.
Well that part is nonsense but yes if you have leash laws like most places do,you should insist that A/C enforce them for ALL Owners and their dogs(All Breeds/types)
All dogs should be under control at ALL times.
Please pass along the informational links provided in an earlier post to that "specialist"??
Sounds like he needs to brush up on his knowledge.
Maybe you could meet and speak to the owner,possibly talking about the risk to their dog.Maybe that approach would work.
Getting hit by a car,being stolen etc.
If they care about their dog at all that might make them think twice.
They`re being irresponsible letting it roam off leash.
The type of dog is irrelevant. -
Not so friendly if they don't know you.
A Pit Bull with a true temperament is extremely human friendly.
It is said that they never meet a stranger.
Even back in the Pit fighting days dogs showing any human aggression were culled from the lines.
Dogs that would redirect onto humans when handled were not tolerated and were dispatched.
A sound stable dog is just that.
That is why the Breed is so resilient,even when rescued from Fight Busts.
The most horribly abused dogs will wag their tails when rescued.
Out of the 49 Dogs rescued from Vick only one showed any human aggression in spite of the horrific conditions that they were kept in.
Their human friendliness is why they are so great as Therapy Dogs.
Their human friendliness is why LawDogsUSA uses ONLY Pit Bulls for their Detection Dogs.
They are not used as German Shepherds and Malinois are used in bite work because it is NOT in their true nature to be human aggressive.
That is why Pit Bulls need to kept inside as pets.
They are people dogs.
They love people,they want to be with people and the worst thing you can do to a Pit Bull is to isolate it from humans.
That destroys their true nature. -
bob, great and funny, well in hindsight, report.
it is once a week i hear locally of unprevoked pitbull attacks on the vulnerable. They all appear to be poor animals left chained up or ones who escaped and attacked a jogger. Hell, even just a couple of days ago there was a pit that bit an officer who had pulled a lady over.
Why dont mastiffs attack randomly, running down innocent victims ripping their faces off?
Too bad the pit didnt get a 40 cal in the skull in addition to a bite back. A dangerous breed and one that i see too often in my local news for attacks on the innocent.
-
Samantha,
Here is a great Canadian site out of BC,
that rescues and educates and places Pit Bulls.
http://www.hugabull.com/matches.html
Please have a look at their site and read about the dogs and the owners and the matches.
Please read some of the links that I previously posted.
There really is no need to freak out simply due to the fact that this dog is a "Pit Bull".
I freak out when I see ANY dog off leash because that tells me that the owner of that dog is NOT responsible but it says absolutely nothing about the temperament of the dog.
A nice loose dog can get beat up by a dog that is not so nice.
A nice loose dog can team up with another nice loose dog,then pack mentality kicks in and that`s when you can really have problems.The Breed doesn`t matter.
Keep insisting that the dogs is your neighbourhood be leashed-ALL the dogs.
That way,everyone(Dogs and people) will be happy and safe.
I call Animal Control EVERY time I see ANY dog off leash after I have spoken to the owner about it once.
Dogs can accidentally get out of yards or run out an open door but there is no excuse for repeat offenders.(That applies to all Owners of ALL dogs)
If the owners of this dogs do not listen and comply then perhaps the dog can be removed from them or they will voluntarily give it up so it can be rehomed with a responsible owner. -
sam CDC has some stats on pits, rotties and presas being responsible for 3/4 of the maiming type attacks whereas other puppers just dont do it as much. Im on mobile so you may want to check out cdc and jama....peer reviewed and statistically relevant! :o)
-
Oh the CDC Study
Glad you brought that up Nikki
Yeah Sam have a look at that and also have a look at this Analysis
of the CDC study and the statement that the CDC released about
people misusing their Study to try and justify BSL.
Very interesting reading.
Also read the Analysis of the Clifton "study" while you`re there.
People also attempt to cite that collection of Newspaper Stories as "proof"
http://www.nationalcanineresearchcouncil.com/dogbites1.asp
Dog Bite Statistics: Science or Junk Science? The "Science" of Dog Attacks
There are many studies and data related to dog bites and dog attacks. However, dog attacks on humans occur in the course of complex interactions between two sentient beings and occur in the most uncontrolled and unscientific settings, involving dozens of variables and circumstances which cannot be measured accurately.
For these reasons, there is no “science” behind any of the studies conducted on cases of dog attacks. However, dog attacks can be studied empirically, or through practical observation; and while numbers can be applied to these observations; the numbers have serious limitations and cannot possibly presume to explain the myriad of physical, mental, and environmental factors which occurred prior to a dog attack.
The NCRC data are derived from a statistically insignificant, and very specific, percentage of dogs (i.e., dogs involved in fatal attacks). Therefore, NCRC data is only useful in examining the circumstances surrounding these specific cases and are NOT predictive of the behaviors of any of the 70+ million dogs currently residing in the United States.
There are a number of other studies presently being cited as "science" or as “evidence” of certain canine behavior. Some of these studies were serious, but flawed, attempts by professionals to examine the characteristics of dogs involved in attacks, while other “studies” are merely a haphazard collection of newspaper articles presented as “statistics.”
An examination of the most popularly quoted dog-bite studies is presented:
Junk "Science" - Merritt Clifton's (Animal People)
Mr. Clifton's "study" can be found on a prominent dog-bite attorney website and is being used as "statistical evidence" of breed behaviors by those who seem unable or unwilling to recognize the critical errors in data collection and the damaging and erroneous conclusions drawn from a biased and flawed sample.
An Analysis of Merritt Clifton (Animal People)
Dog Attack Deaths and Maimings, U.S. & Canada - September 1982 to November 13, 2006.
Merritt Clifton’s scrapbook of newspaper articles is presented, and often accepted, as an unbiased and accurate representation of dog attacks in the U.S. and Canada. The title and numbers presented as “statistics” suggest that an unbiased, scientific methodology was used to achieve the results.
However, Mr. Clifton arbitrarily excluded dog attacks in which the breed of dog was not “identifiable,” that is, where no one at the scene, or later, claimed to know what kind of dogs were involved. Also excluded were dogs deemed to be used for guarding, police work or as fighting dogs. The uncertainty of any alleged breed identification aside, the exclusion of all attacks by dogs where no breed identification was asserted, combined with the exclusion of dogs used for a specific function, leaves us a list that is utterly unrepresentative of “dog attacks and maimings” in the U.S. and Canada.
Mr. Clifton’s “study” further suffers from the use of a biased sample. There is no national organization in the U.S. or Canada that collects data on a systematic basis on the circumstances or specifics of dog bite-related injuries. In the absence of a professionally reliable data source, news reports are often substituted in an attempt to identify circumstances surrounding dog attacks. However, newspapers do not have the interest, desire, resources or ability to provide an accurate or complete profile of dog attacks occurring in the U.S. and Canada.
Newspaper articles as a biased sample:
Fatal Dog Attack Numbers:
Merritt Clifton located 264 fatal dog attacks in the U.S. and Canada from 1982 to 2006 through the collection of newspaper articles.
The Centers for Disease Control and the National Canine Research Council have documented 477 fatal dog attacks in the U.S. and Canada during this same period.
“Maiming” Numbers:
Merritt Clifton located 2,209 “attacks doing bodily harm” occurring between 1982 and 2006 from newspaper articles.
According to the Centers for Disease Control and the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control over 300,000 people report annually to emergency rooms for treatment of dog bites, of whom approximately 6,000 are injured severely enough to require hospitalization.
Hospital admission for injuries sustained during a dog attack is a valid medical assessment of “bodily harm.” Therefore, according to the CDC and the NCIPC, at least 150,000 people received bodily harm (i.e., hospital admission with a median stay of 3.6 days) from dog attacks during the same time period as Clifton's "study." (1982-2006)
Merritt Clifton’s collection of the 2,209 attacks reported in the newspapers is clear evidence that most “attacks doing bodily harm” are NOT reported.
What method editors and reporters use to determine which dog attacks to publicize is unknown.
Clifton then went on to draw sweeping and totally inaccurate conclusions about breed behaviors; presenting his collection of newspaper articles as "evidence" and "predictive" of the nature and behavior of all the other dogs in the U.S.
Pseudo-Science: The CDC Study
The CDC study has been quoted, misquoted, cited, misread, and misunderstood on a regular basis by politicians, the public, attorneys, and the media. Few people actually bother to read the report in its entirety or are willing to acknowledge the severe limitations and flawed methodology used to gather the data which was presented in this study.
An Analysis of the CDC Study
Breeds of Dogs Involved in Fatal Human Attacks in the U.S. between 1979 and 1998
The critical flaw in the CDC's study was the attempt to isolate a factor (breed) which could not be isolated and was impossible to verify.
Of all the more tangible circumstances surrounding a dog attack (sex of dog, reproductive status of dog, location of dog, relationship of dog to victim), the CDC chose, for unknown reasons, the most problematic and least reliable aspect on which to base their study.
Without any legitimate way to identify or verify breeds of dogs, and while knowing that mixed breed dogs make up a significant portion of dogs in the U.S.; the CDC, nevertheless, sought out and attempted to acquire breed information. Since there was, and still is, no national recording system that keeps track of the events surrounding dogs bites, the CDC scanned newspaper articles for breed identifications in cases of fatal dog attacks.
In addition to using newspaper articles, the CDC excluded nearly 1/4 of the small sample population (n=320) due to the fact their source (i.e., newspapers) either failed to report the incident altogether or reported the incident but failed to "identify" a breed.
However, unlike the Clifton study listed above, the CDC recognized the flaws in their study and clearly stated that no conclusions on breed behaviors could be drawn from their data.
The CDC no longer keeps track of dog bite fatalities by breed and has posted the following statement on their website:
********"A CDC study on fatal dog bites lists the breeds involved in fatal attacks over 20 years (Breeds of dogs involved in fatal human attacks in the United States between 1979 and 1998). It does not identify specific breeds that are most likely to bite or kill, and thus is not appropriate for policy-making decisions related to the topic. Each year, 4.7 million Americans are bitten by dogs. These bites result in approximately 16 fatalities; about 0.0002 percent of the total number of people bitten. These relatively few fatalities offer the only available information about breeds involved in dog bites. There is currently no accurate way to identify the number of dogs of a particular breed, and consequently no measure to determine which breeds are more likely to bite or kill."****
http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/duip/biteprevention.htm
** The American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) released statement on the erroneous use and conclusions of the CDC study: -
Realizing that there are good dogs and bad dogs in every breed, I am still biased against those, such as a pit bull, that can have a mean disposition. We've read so many stories where pit bulls have attacked, maimed and even killed children that it's sickening.
This story is a case of just deserves...funny first then not so funny when you realize this dog could have continued his attack.
-
Some good information here on dog attacks and how to not provoke an attack.
One thing not mentioned here that I was taught in karate was that if a dog bites you on the arm and you can't get him lose you should, as quickly and forcefully as possible, try to jam their neck backwards towards their body. You can break their neck very easily this way. Also a good eye poke works on everything on the planet.
-
New York Stats
http://www.nationalcanineresearchcouncil.com/NewYorkStats.asp
A National Canine Research Council Perspective Report
Over the past 43 years (1965 - 2007) there have been 25 fatal dog attacks in NewYork State or an average of one (1) fatality every one to two years.
New York State has experienced a population increase of more than 1.5 million over the past 4 decades. Yet, in spite of the increase in both the human and canine population over the past 40 years, fatal dog attacks have decreased in the state:
Number of fatal dog attacks in New York State:
1965 - 1985: 13 fatal attacks
1986 - 2006: 11 fatal attacks
2007 - present 1 fatal attack
At least 13 different breeds/types of dogs have been identified as participating in a fatal attack in New York.
The victims were: 8 adults and 17 children.
Nearly half (n=7) of the children killed by dogs in New York State were cases of infants left unattended with unfamiliar dogs.
Not only were a number of these infants left with unfamiliar dogs, but they were left with dogs that were severely undersocialized, abused or had been encouraged to be aggressive:
In 1976, a woman left her East Harlem apartment, leaving behind her 4-day-old infant on the floor along with a severely emaciated, starving dog.
In 1976, another infant, 14-days-old, was left unattended at his grandmother's home with a dog named "Satan."
In 1984, a 2-month-old infant was left unattended in a New York City apartment with an intact male dog. The parents/owners admitted the dog was a "trained guard dog."
Of the other nine (9) children killed by dogs in New York State, four (4) were cases of unsupervised children encountering chained dogs:
In 1983, a 2-year-old wandered out to the resident chained dog. The boy became entangled in the dog's chained and was then attacked and killed.
In spite of the negligent and inhumane ownership practices of some dog owners (and/or parents), dogs still pose an incredibly low risk for causing a fatality:
Fatal Dog Attacks in New York State as Compared to Other Selected Risks:
Snapshot of New York State: Year 2004
Persons killed by dogs: 0
Child death after left in hot car: 1
Persons killed by lightning: 2
Fatal hunting accidents: 3
Persons drowned in tub or swimming pool: 27
ATV-related fatalities: 38
Bicycle-related fatalities: 47
Furthermore, according to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services:
In 2005, seventy-five (75) New York State children died as a result of maltreatment (abuse or neglect).
In a SINGLE YEAR, 2005, more than FOUR TIMES as many New York State children died from maltreatment (abuse or neglect) than the TOTAL from ALL dog attacks in New York over the past 43 years.
Fatalities are not Breed Specific Debra.
They are very rare but all dogs are capable of biting and killing(small dogs also)
I hope you will take the time to read all the links provided.
Thank You Debra
Hopefully we`ll start listening to the real Canine Experts on this issue one of these days.
http://www.avma.org/public_health/dogbite/dogbite.pdf
That is the only way to prevent similar tragedies.
Children must be supervised at all times around ALL dogs. -
Fatalities are not Breed Specific Debra.
I understand this. Yes, I've heard of cases where children were mauled or killed by other kinds of dogs, which include Rotts, Dobermans, etc.
Children must be supervised at all times around ALL dogs.
As well, I understand this...and I do fault the adults who have left children unattended around dogs that did turn on the children.
There isn't a need to re-educate me, because I have read the arguments for and against issues like this. What I was saying was we've seen plenty of stories about pit bulls (search DJ for stories about such cases!) being the most reported dogs that hurt/killed/attacked people, be it adult or children. Statistically, maybe these incidences are minute, but tell that to the parents of children who have been in harms way, whether or not it was the parent's fault or the owner's. -
http://www.nationalcanineresearchcouncil.com/media1.asp
The Media: A Reliable Source of Information on Dog Attacks?
Everything is a Pit bull, whether it is or not....
The media will "identify" dogs as Pit bulls regardless of the fact that the dog does not conform to even the most basic and obvious "breed standards"
July 23, 2008: WPXI News in Wilkinsburg, PA reported that a boy received 200 stitches after being attacked by a "140 lb. pit bull."
There is no need for any discussion here about breeds or Pit bulls.
If the dog is 140 lbs. (as the media claims) then quite simply: It is NOT a Pit bull.
(It would have been helpful if the media reported how the dog was maintained, where the owner was at the time of the attack, or how the dog was able to attack the boy, but, as usual, the media did not supply this information). Everything is a Pit bull, whether it is or not: Again
On July 7, 2008 two local Portland, Oregon news stations KPTV and KXL radio reported the following story on the news and on the Internet:
"Three people were recovering Monday afternoon following a dog attack on Sunday...after a pit bull mix busted through a screen door and onto Southeast 70th and Flavel streets. One woman was still in the hospital, listed in fair condition after the attack."
Since no one witnessed the dog leaving his property, it is unknown how these news sources knew the dog "busted through a screen door." Animal Control stated only that the screen door was "broken." However, it is known that the gate to the yard was open and the dog was able to leave the yard because his owner apparently suffered a fatal heart attack when he was mowing the grass.
One other "little" error on the part of KPTV and KXL radio reports: The dog involved in this attack was not a "Pit bull mix" but found to be a 150 lb. Great Dane / Bullmastiff x.
It should be noted that KGW News did an admirable job of reporting this incident as a traumatic and sad event for all parties; the victims, the owner who passed away and for the dog that was obviously effected by his owner's death.
Everything is a Pit bull, whether it is or not: Again
On June 4, 2008, at least 29 news articles were run on a story about a Los Angeles boy "mauled by a Pit bull." Some of the headlines were:
*
"LA toddler hospitalized after being mauled by Pit bulls" - Fresno Bee
*
"2-year-old stable after pit bull bites his face" - LA Times
The Mercury News even reported that two Pit bulls attacked the child. Another article described the dog as the "family Pit bull." The Los Angeles Times reported the boy in "critical condition after he was bitten by a pit bull."
Perhaps the media should not bear the brunt for this serious error, as the source of the breed mis-identification was found to have originated from the Los Angeles Police Department.
The LAPD should not attempt to identify breeds of dogs or comment on canine behavior. The average police officer is no more skilled in breed identification than is the average reporter. Perhaps in the realization of this, the LAPD later referred all inquiries on the dog involved in this incident to the city's animal services department.
The Los Angeles Department of Animal Services released a statement declaring the dog involved in the attack on the boy was "in fact a shepherd mix."
Note: Acknowledgement is given to the Los Angeles Times for printing a "For the Record" remark on the erroneous breed identification of the dog in this incident. On June 7th the LA Times printed the following: "An article in Thursday's California section about a boy attacked by his family's dog quoted authorities as saying the dog was a pit bull. The Los Angeles Department of Animal Services said Friday that the animal that bit the toddler was a shepherd mix."
However, this small retraction cannot possibly undo the damage that was done by the media. All the headlines run by the LA Times which initially identified this dog to be a Pit bull have not been pulled and can still be found in the LA Times archives.
Additionally, more than one attorney website and dog bite "advocacy" website has picked up this "Pit bull attack" story and posted it on their website as additional "evidence" of the nature of Pit bulls.
Everything is a Pit bull, whether it is or not:
A two-year-old Las Vegas boy was in serious condition in the hospital after being attacked by a dog that had escaped its yard on June 4, 2008.
Las Vegas ActionNews13 reported the dog to be "a pit bull mix." While, the Las Vegas Review Journal reported the dog to be a "70 lb. Boxer."
The NCRC observed videos and photos of the dog and no discernable Pit bull characteristics are evident. Some Boxer characteristics are discernable, however, the dog appears to be a mixed breed, which may or may not be part Boxer.
Sad event for a little boy, but a field day for the media:
The May 25th attack on a 6-year-old Youngstown boy by his father's yard dog (kept in a kennel) was described in a number of Ohio papers. Please read the following excerpts of the attack as presented by the media:
The Story:
"The boy was fading in and out." "I never seen anything like it in my life." "I heard the mother screaming and saw the dog rolling the baby like a tumbleweed, I heard the bones crush on his left arm." "The dog bit the boy's face and neck, ripped his lip, and bent his arm back like paper." "The mother was trying to free her son from the pit bull's jaws, but the dog kept tearing at the child's flesh as they rolling in the yard." "Neighbors used a baseball bat and a steel rake to beat the dog away." "He (the dog) had a lock on the baby." "The dog clamped his jaws around the boy's neck." "The initial call to police listed the victim as a nonbreather." (Quotes from Vindy.com, May 26, 2008 & Tribune Chronicle, May 27, 2008)
The Facts:
Sadly, a 6-year-old boy experienced a frightening, painful and unfortunate attack by a dog and no doubt he was seriously injured. However, despite the graphic descriptions about locking jaws, crushing bones, ripping of skin and tearing of flesh -- The boy was released from the hospital a few hours after the attack.
Does the identification "possibly a Pit bull" demonstrate a reliable or serious attempt to report accurate details of a dog attack? And when is a "loose, fleeing dog", really a chained dog?
On March 24, 2008, a Lugoff, South Carolina girl was reported to be playing in her front yard when she was attacked by a loose dog. The family of the girl reported the fleeing dog to be "possibly a Pit bull mix," which "bit the 5-year-old and took off." WLTX-News19 promptly printed this "Pit bull" breed identification and version of events in their coverage of this incident.
The same day, The State, reported this same version of this incident and identifying the dog to be a "bulldog mix."
The same day, WIS News 10, put a little more effort into their coverage of this incident and quoted Kershaw County Control officials identifying the dog to be "an adult mixed breed."
The next day, March 25th, The State covered this incident again, and reported to the dog to be a Chesapeake Bay retriever / Mastiff mix.
Additionally, the story had changed from the girl being attacked by a loose dog in her front yard to the child being attacked after entering onto her neighbor's property and approaching the chained dog.
Credit is due to The State, for printing a follow-up and corrected version of the events as they really occurred. However, here is yet another example of how initial reports of dog attacks rarely identify the correct breed of dog involved and rarely reveal the true circumstances surrounding how an attack occurred.
It is vital for the public to recognize that rarely does the media print a "follow-up or corrected" version of an attack after the initial (and often erroneous) story.
How Can a Boy "Critically Mauled" by a Pit bull be Home from the Hospital in less than 24 hours?
On February 17, 2008, a Lubbock, Texas newspaper reported the headline: "Boy Critical after Pit Bull Mauling." The article claimed the boy was in "critical condition after being mauled by a Pit bull - Boxer mix." And in an "expanded coverage" byline, the paper went on to list each and every story of any Pit bull encounter (with or without injuries) with a human or animal that they could dig up in their archives.
Yet, less than 24 hours later the "critically injured" boy was at home, running around and playing like a normal 3-year-old. Photos of the boy reveal a sweet-looking boy with a few scrapes and abrasions on his forehead. Indeed, it was later reported that it could not be determined if the dog actually bit the boy or if the abrasions were caused by the dog's claws when he jumped on the boy.
So, here again is another "Pit bull" encounter with a human that has been grossly and irresponsibly misrepresented by the media, and which again re-enforces the hysteria around Pit bulls and dog attacks. And, indeed, this is demonstrated by the fact that the Lubbock newspapers ran multiple stories on this "attack" along with an emotional editorial to "Ban All Pit Bulls."
However, the real facts of this case are:
Was there an irresponsible owner who allowed his dog of undetermined breed to roam loose and frighten and injure a child? Yes
Did this dog actually "attack" this child or did the dog simply react (chase and jump) on a small boy who admittedly ran because he was scared of dogs? Undetermined, but the injuries suggest this was not an attack, but an over stimulated dog chasing and jumping on a fleeing child.
Was the boy "critically injured"? No
Was the boy "mauled"? No
Was this an unnecessary, preventable, and frightening incident for a child? Yes
Did the media report this incident accurately and responsibly? No
So here again, the media has stirred up a storm of controversy and hysteria about "Pit bulls." However, this case has nothing to do with "Pit bulls" or any breed or dog.
This was simply a century-old problem of an irresponsible dog owner allowing his/her dog to roam loose in an urban setting and the dog behaving as dogs often will when left to their own devices and without direction, (i.e., behaving badly by frightening, chasing and inflicting minor injuries on fleeing children)
When is a "Woman Killed by her Own Pet Pit Bulls" not a Fatal Dog Attack?
On January 28, 2008 the following headlines were printed in the Illinois media:
* "Downstate Woman Killed by Her Own Pet Pit bulls," Daily Herald
* "Illinois Woman Fatally Mauled by Pet Pit Bulls," STLtoday
* "Woman Mauled to Death by Pit Bulls," NBC5 (WMAQ - Chicago)
* "Pets Maul Woman to Death," WHBF, Illinois
All these articles then went on to say that police are investigating the death of a woman who was mauled to death by her pet pit bulls.
There is no need for any discussion on how these dogs came to be identified as "Pit bulls" or how they really were not "pets of the woman" (as the dogs belonged to her boyfriend). The issues need not be addressed because the woman was not killed by the dogs.
The media had pronounced the dogs had caused this woman's death prior to an autopsy.
One week later the autopsy and toxicology tests conducted by the Sangamon County Coroner revealed the woman died from a drug overdose and was NOT killed by the dogs.
It was highly irresponsible and unethical for the media to pronounce "a cause of death" in a case such as this, where there were no witnesses to the death. It can safely be said that these media sources do not have a medical examiner or coroner on staff, and as such, they should not have reported as "fact" a cause of death until a preliminary autopsy was done.
This kind of irresponsible reporting is far too common, as the media works under deadlines to report the news as quickly as possible. This rush to "report" the news makes the media less concerned with accuracy and detail and more concerned with deadlines. The resulting articles are often incomplete accounts of the event, filled in with speculation and then fortified by at least one sensational quote from any readily available source (whether this source is qualified to make a statement on the event appears at times to be irrelevant).
See below for more cases of reported fatal dog attacks that were later found to be from other causes.
When is a Boxer not a Pit Bull? And when is a Pit Bull not a Boxer?
On December 30, 2007 a 20-month-old girl and her grandmother were attacked at a relative's house in San Jose, California. As will often happen when a dog's teeth come into contact with a child's face, the injuries to the girl were significant.
At least 90 articles were printed about this attack:
* 17 media sources identified the dog as a Pit bull or Pit mix.
* 41 media sources identified the dog as a Boxer-mix
* 31 media sources identified the dog as a Boxer-Pit mix
* 1 Newspaper was responsible enough to claim they did not know the dog's breed and it may have been either a Pit bull mix or a Boxer mix.
Perhaps this may not seem so significant to the casual observer, but consider the response to the one newspaper (The San Francisco Chronicle) which reported the dog to be a Pit bull: On their webpage (SFGate.com) the message board below this article had 120 comments, most about dog attacks and the "vicious" nature of Pit bulls.
And here again public perception is focused on an aspect of a dog attack which is unknown (breed), while the factors that directly contributed to this attack are not discussed or examined in a context which may help people understand why this attack occurred and how it could have possibly been avoided.
When is a Pit Bull not a Pit Bull? And when is a Golden Terrier not a Golden Terrier?
On March 18, 2007 at least 4 different media sources ran headlines proclaiming "Pit bull kills its owner in Friendswood." Newspapers and TV stations reported there were 3 dogs in the yard when the woman was attacked and some of these media sources identified the dogs to be: An Alaskan Collie, a Golden Terrier, and a Pit bull. Undaunted by the fact that testing or evidence collection had not yet been performed on any of the dogs, or the fact that there were no witnesses to the attack, the media concluded that the "Pit bull" was the dog responsible for the attack on the victim, and printed the story as such.
Fortunately (or not), the newspapers concluded, on their own, that the "Golden Terrier" and "Alaskan Collie" were not involved in the fatality; thereby saving those who use newspapers to identify and keep track of breeds involved in fatal attacks the embarrassment of adding these non-existent breeds to their "statistics."
However, the "Golden Terrier" (aka Golden Retriever) was ultimately determined to have participated in the attack and was euthanized.
The "Alaskan Collie" (aka Australian Shepherd) was deemed not to have participated in the attack and was not euthanized.
And the "Pit bull" which was later identified not to be a Pit bull, but to be a mix of Catahoula Leopard and Am. Bulldog. Although shot at the scene, evidence determined this dog had participated in the attack.
Can we believe the San Francisco Weekly and their U.S. Postal Service source about dog attacks?
On January 9, 2008, yet another article on the "dangerousness" of dogs, was printed in the SFWeekly. James Wigdel, spokesman for the San Francisco district Post Office, was quoted in the article as stating that "mail carriers in the United States have been killed by dogs."
The NCRC has no record or documentation, dating back to 1965, of any Postal Office worker, Police Officer or Animal Control Officer being killed by a dog in the United States. The San Francisco Post Office was contacted and asked to reference who these individuals were and when these mail carriers were allegedly killed by dogs. No one in the San Francisco Post Office could substantiate the comment made by their spokesman. When asked to research this further, the San Francisco Postal Service complied and contacted the USPS headquarters in D.C. for any information on mail carriers killed by dogs.
The USPS headquarters in D.C. had no information or documentation, dating back to 1982, of any U.S. mail carrier killed by a dog.
SFWeekly and their source (a spokesperson for the SF Post Office) have "reported" events which did not occur.
Are All Reported Fatal Dog Attacks the Result of a Dog Attack?
In December 2002 an elderly woman was found dead inside her daughter's home in New Jersey. There were two dogs in the home at the time the woman was found. The incident was widely covered in the media and reported as:
* "Killer Pit bulls Rip Granny to Shreds" (New York Post)
* "Grandmother Mauled to Death by Family's Pit bulls" (Newsday)
So here again is more "proof" of the "unpredictable and vicious" nature of Pit bulls and thus began renewed discussion about controlling dangerous breeds of dogs in New Jersey.
There was only one problem with this "fatal Pit bull attack." The woman was not killed by the dogs. An autopsy eventually revealed that her death was due to natural causes and the dogs were found not to have contributed to her death.
This is not so uncommon as one may imagine. Since 2002 there have been at least seven (7) cases of deaths reported in the news as "fatal dog attacks" but which were later determined (through an autopsy) to be from natural causes (unrelated to dog bites) or natural causes with a non-lethal dog bite as a contributing factor.
Not surprisingly all these erroneous reports of fatal dog attacks were attributed to Pit bulls or Rottweilers, (in one case the media alternately identified the dogs involved in the "attack" to be either; Fila Brasileiro, Mastiff, Bulldog, Am. Bulldog and/or Pit bull).
Add a Comment
|
 |
|
|
Boy Bites Dog in Brazil
Email
Print
Share
