[rant]

As some of you know, I’ve very strong feelings about Dangerous Breed Dogs and their owners.  I believe that many of these dogs are unfit for neighborhood settings and their owners are reckless in their care for these animals.  It should also be know that our family has been victimized by Dangerous Breed Dogs on many occasions.  From little things like being harassed on the street, heels and calves being knipped at, to $2000 worth of vet bills after one attacked our docile dog, and also the killing of our purebred Prussian Siamese kitty, belonging to my daughter. (The cat was laying in my carport when the neighbors dog lunged through the fencing, breaking out four of the boards, landing on the cat and tearing it to shreads, all in about five seconds, right before my eyes.  The dog was a 120lb Rottwieller.)

Please, let me condition this by first saying a few things about some Dangerous Breed Dogs and their owners.  I fully understand that not all dogs (even of the same breed) have the exact same reactions to stimuli.  This is not a blanket condemnation of DBDs, just that of those dogs that are a menace to neighborhoods with owners that are too thick skulled to realize that their Right to own such dog does in fact infringe on my right to keep my family safe from threat or violence.  Also, I fully understand that many people, including our fine friend Eric E, are responsible, caring owners of such dogs and a testament to the exception of the general stereotype about these dogs.

With that being said, my daughter went to the ER last night, the cops went to the coffee shop, and the perp is now no where to be found.

Here is a little history on our family’s harassment from a DBD and it’s negligent owner.  Our neighbor, two doors down, has a Pitbull.  Kinda cute in their own ugly way.  Her name is “Angel”, and how fitting.  Her owner is a younger fellow, mid 20’s named Randy.  Randy surely loves Angel.  He’s had her since a puppy, evidence that her behavior is fully his responsibility.  Randy’s father is the legal owner of the property, having purchased it five years ago for the benefit of Randy.  

Angel has been a menace to this neighborhood for the better part of three years.  Her resume includes one bite of a child, multiple charging/threatening incidents, and now the bite of my child.  This is the official record of her, not including the stuff that has gone unreported to Animal Services.

Animal Control Services and the Thurston County District Courts have determined that Angel is a “Dangerous Dog” as defined by the Revised Code of Washington 16.08.070.  Randy has fought this classification and lost.  For some reason, Animal Control Services, is hesitant about enforcement of the RCWs.  I believe that they have a policy that would rather “work out” the problems with the dogs and owners instead of just doing what the law reads.

Since Angel has been classified as a Dangerous Dog, Randy is required by law to meet certain conditions, as outlined in RCW 16.08.090.  First and foremost is the containment of the dog.  This dog HAS to be contained in a locked building, a kennel with a roof, or chained and muzzled when outside of it’s property.  Also, the owner of the Dangerous Dog is required by RCW 16.08.080 (6)(b)(c) to maintain an insurance policy or surety bond in the amount of $250,000.

Animal Control Services is to issue a Certificate of Registration for Dangerous Dogs with an accompanying fee of $75.  I would assume that this registration and service fee is for Animal Control to have the ability to oversee that these laws are being followed.

I’ve personally had three other encounters with Angel on the street, charging at me and biting at my heels and calfs.  She has never broken my skin.  Each time, for a number of reasons, I didn’t get Animal Services involved, generally because of assurances from him, assurances from my other neighbor, and because my wife didn’t think it was absolutely necessary as the consequences for Randy could be quite severe.  One confrontation with Randy’s friend that let the dog out led to police involvment.  I had walked down to the end of the street to put up a Garage Sale sign when she charged me.  I went after her with my hammer when the “friend” decided I was trespassing, even though I had not entered their yard.  He asked for a physical confrontation, which I agreed to, but then he decided that me being twice his size would be a bad thing for him.  Because the friend had let the dog out, and not Randy himself, the authorities decided not to do anything.  The trespassing was laughable and went no where.


Now, we all have a bit of background.  Randy is a lazy dirtbag with a Dangerous Dog.  The law requires him to do certain things, he doesn’t.  He’s in they system, but the system isn’t proactive, even though they are paid to do so.  

So, yesterday early evening, my wife and childred came down to visit me on the other lot in our neighborhood that we own.  I had been working all day on it with the tractor.  It was nice to see them, and they had wanted to take a walk.  My four year old (Savannah)  was on her bike (she’s still on training wheels), while the wife was pushing the baby in the stroller.  I stayed to do more work after our visit, them returning to home.  We live at the end of the Cul-de-Sac, having to pass by Randy’s home at the mouth of the Cul-de-Sac.  We have three other neighbors, five homes in total.  All but one neighbor was outside with friends or family.  All saw what was to happen.  

While my wife was holding the baby, talking with a neighbor, Savannah was riding around in circles in front of our home.  Like a bolt of lightning, Angel charged out of her yard (unleashed, ungated, unmuzzled, uncontrolled) and attacked Savannah on her bike.  Luckily, as Angel was trying to bite Savannah, she was also getting a mouthful of bicycle seat and not just Savannah’s butt.  Savannah was then knocked off her bike and lay on the ground. By this time, all the neighbors and my wife were running to the scene, yelling at the dog to get off her.  Keep in mind that this area is only as large as your typical neighborhood Cul-de-Sac, so everyone was pretty close in.  Luckily, Angel disengaged the attack when the adults reacted and ran back to her home.

Randy then controlled his dog, locking it up in his home.  After EMT arrived, we took Savannah to the ER on their advise.  Savannah is current on her vaccinations, but they thought it would be best if a doctor look her over.  Fortunately, Savannah’s wounds really are not very bad.  We opted not to take the Tetnus shot, but she is on a small run of antibiotics.  She will recover well and is in good spirits.  We’re proud of how well she’s handled this attack.

NOW, the 911 dispatch has decided that they WILL NOT send out Sheriffs Deputies, as dog bites do not warrant such a reaction unless hospitalization is required.  I told dispatch that they were required to send Sheriffs and Animal Control as the dog has been classified as a Dangerous Dog.  At the time I couldn’t remember the cite, but I do believe that RCW 16.08.100 would be the appropriate law backing up what I was requesting.  She told me no, yet again.  She did say that they would send out an Animal Control Officer to take a report.  He met us at the hospital.  He took a picture of her wound, and a preliminary report from me.  I asked him to go back down and confiscate the dog, take pictures of her enclosure, and make notice if the required signage (as required by RCW 16.08.080 (6)(a)  He refused.  He told me that an Animal Control Officer would contact me in the morning.  I expressed my concerns that Randy and/or Angel is a flight risk, as Randy understands that he will have severe consequences.  This did not persuade the officer.

We stopped by and bought ice cream on our way home.

Two hours ago, the main Animal Control Officer stopped by our home.  His name is Ken, someone whom I’ve dealt with in the past.  I really like Ken, and I think he has real concerns for everyone involved.  I think this is actually a fault, as Ken thinks he has the authority to mitigate the law, making determinations that are contrary.  I now know that I’m going to have to educate him with my concerns and how I see the law.

Ken took some pictures of Savannah’s wound and the area of attack. He also looked for the dogs enclosure, but could not find it or the required notice.  He also informed me that he could not confiscate Angel as SHE WAS NOT THERE.  No Shit.  Neither was Randy.  I let Ken know my dissatisfaction, especially after airing my concerns with Dispatch and the original Animal Control Officer.  He had no answers for that.

Ken was also kind enough to let me know that Randy had told Animal Control that Angel had been removed from the county, relieving him of any liabilities, but that Animal Control KNEW that she was still here (possibly because of another complaint).  He also told me that some commissioner has allowed Randy to only carry $50,000 worth of insurance, as the $250,000 would have been more than Randy could afford.  This upsets me greatly, as their arbitrary decisions contrary to the law made it possible for Randy to keep the menacing dog in my neighborhood.  If Randy was required to have the $250K, he wouldn’t have been able to afford it, he would have had to get rid of the dog, and my daughter would not have been bit.  To make matters worse, Ken has told me that if Randy volunteers to let Angel be euthanized, that he will not charge Randy with the Gross Misdemeanor as set forth in RCW 16.08.040.  I have no idea where Ken thinks he get the authority to make that decision.

My next step is to complete the witness forms and hand them into Animal Control.  At that time, I’m going to have Ken and who ever is his boss go through each of these concerns of mine.  I think I’ll also have to get the Sheriff involved (he’s a friend of mine, but I’ve not contacted him yet) and probably the District Attorney.  I’ll also have to figure out how to get into contact with Randy’s insurance company, as I already have about $300 worth of medical that I’ve paid out of pocket.  I hope that Savannah will also get compensation above medical.  I’ve nothing against punative damages against habitual offenders.

Just as a side note, the Revised Code of Washington is also mirrored in Thurston County Code, especially 9.10.050(D) , 9.10.070, and 9.10.080.


[/rant]

first let me say this.

Properly raised pits are some of the best dogs out there. intellegent and strong. They are also protective to the extream of their family/territory. This makes them very good guard dogs.The dog obviously saw your daughter as a threat to it's home or family and reacted the only way it knows how.

The fault here does NOT lie with the dog but with the owner. Part of the responsibility of owning such a dog is protecting it and the neighborhood from each other. A dog that is running loose in a residential area is an accident waiting to happen and is complete stupidity on the part of the owner. Either someone WILL get bitten or the dog WILL end up dead under a car.

I am a dog lover and have worked closely with several rescues over the years. I also would have shot the damn dog as soon as my daughter was out of harms way. Don't think for a min that the local .gov gives 2 shits about your complaint on the dog. The dog now has a proven DOCUMENTED bite history. if this is not the first you have serious grounds to have him get rid of the dog. Here on the second offense the county will put them down.

hope your little girl is fine. I also hope this doesn't scar her for life about mans best freinds.

mike

By the time I had found out what had happened, Randy already had the dog inside.  I had no opportunity to get my hands on it.  Also, this is the first time the dog has been outside since the incident I described about me and the hammer.  That dog was on my short list, shoot on sight, I just never had the opportunity.  I was not prepared to enter into his residence to shoot his dog.

Past few weekends, the girlfriend and I have been clearing the back part of her property. The people behind her have a 4 foot chain link fence with a huge Rotty that charges the fence every time we venture back there to clear it out and then just stands there and barks the whole time.

I always have my .45 on my hip because if that dog ever decideds to come over the fence, which I'm sure he could do if he wanted to, it's going to be one dead dog.

Glad things weren't worse for Savannah.

I would post more thoughts about this but I don't think what I have to suggest is exactly legal.

Sounds like you've gone above and beyond by following proper procedure, despite the fact that the system isn't helping you--the victim.  I'd use lethal force with that dog going forward, and if Randy reappears, I'd serve notice that his dog is walking on very thin ice.  

Good luck!  

Quoted: Beerslayer, I agree with everything you said except the fact that pit bulls make good guard dogs. Real pit bulls are not human aggresive at all and would most likely lick an intruder to death. The human aggresive "pits" are a result of the gang bangers taking good dogs and making them mean, bad breeding, and over breeding. A pit that was human aggresive would have never been bred in the old days, they got culled. A human aggresive pit is not something I would ever let near me because their tempermants are fucked right from birth.

my point was they could be easily trained to react <not bite> to an intruder. They are some of the smartest dogs i ever had the good fortune to deal with. The idiots they give them agression training need to be shot.

Stokes,

Whatever you do, don't poison that dog with antifreeze. that is a horrible and cruel way to kill an animal. A bullet to the head is mush more humane.

mike

If the breeds that are collectively known as 'pit bulls' were not animals, but consumer products, instead, the CPSC would have long, long ago banned them into nonexistence!

Or, if you were permitted to keep them in your home, you would have to get beaucoup insurance to cover the damages that these 'dogs of Peace and Kindness' invaribly cause.

You can continue to blame the owners, rather than the product itself, but the product itself might be 'unreasonably dangerous' when viewed in light of the damages it can cause!

There are just too many of these sorts of attacks for us to continue to blame it on the owners themselves. If owners of these breeds MUST spend that much time training and controlling these breeds of dogs, then the problem lies in the nature of the breeds themselves...

It's in the blood!

They are hardwired to be vicious in a manner unknown to beagles and terriers.

Eric The(CaveCanem)Hun

I seriously doubt I'll ever see that dog again.  Animal Control has said that there is no saving it from their viewpoint, and if I get to it first, it will be quick and painless.  I could only hope that Randy would decide to intervene.

Quoted: They are hardwired to be vicious in a manner unknown to beagles and terriers. Eric The(CaveCanem)Hun

you do realise that beagles are known biters also? Pit's are terriers. I have a beagle that would rip your throat out if she was given the chance. Lucky for me she is so fat she is out of breath by the time she stands up.

ANY dog can be a biter. The only reason you hear of more pitbulls is because the media has demonised the breed. I have been bitten countless times by dogs in the rescues. NONE of them were large dogs.

Pits get into trouble because they are TAUGHT to be agressive or are mentally defective from inbreeding.

Quoted: I'd inform the owner that if I spot his dog not in the constraints with which it is supposed to be contained, I would shoot the bitch.

This step was taken on the last incident.  I've not seen the dog on the loose since then.
I don't know if any of you remember, but I posted here about that incident, as the Sheriff had told me about the three S's.

Posted By The_Beer_Slayer:

you do realise that beagles are known biters also?

Yes, so I've heard, but all dogs can bite....and beagles do NOT wind up anywhere near the listing of Cangerous Dog Breeds that have been promulgated by insurance companies.

You know, the folks who actually pay the costs for these unprovoked attacks!

Well, the folks who pay for these costs, and then pass them on to their policy holders in increased premiums.

So, we ALL pay for these Dangerous Dog Breeds! Everyone who carries insurance pays for the increased costs generated by these DBDs.

I have a beagle that would rip your throat out if she was given the chance. Lucky for me she is so fat she is out of breath by the time she stands up.

Hmmm, sounds like the owner's fault!

Isn't that the excuse we always hear from the owners of DBD dogs?

ANY dog can be a biter. The only reason you hear of more pitbulls is because the media has demonised the breed. I have been bitten countless times by dogs in the rescues. NONE of them were large dogs.

Au contraire, mon Frere!

The breeds that are collectively referred to as pit bulls have biting abilities that are off the scale!

Have you ever seen pictures of pit bulls hanging from a chicken carcasse that they are biting in the air?

Imagine a beagle doing that!

The last time that we had this 'Pit Bull' thread, it was determined that over a 20 year period, 66 folks in the United States, 80% of them children under 13, had died as the result of a pit bull attack.

The next highest breed was German Shepherd with 44 dead during the same period.

There IS a vast DIFFERENCE between being bitten by a pit bull and a beagle, my dear friend!

Pits get into trouble because they are TAUGHT to be agressive or are mentally defective from inbreeding.

So what is your beagle's excuse?

Why is it so vicious? It's not a known breed for viciousness? Is it mentally defective?

Or could it be the owner....?

Eric The(Naw!)Hun

Quoted: Posted By The_Beer_Slayer: you do realise that beagles are known biters also? Yes, so I've heard, but all dogs can bite....and beagles do NOT wind up anywhere near the listing of Cangerous Dog Breeds that have been promulgated by insurance companies. You know, the folks who actually pay the costs for these unprovoked attacks! Well, the folks who pay for these costs, and then pass them on to their policy holders in increased premiums. So, we ALL pay for these Dangerous Dog Breeds! Everyone who carries insurance pays for the increased costs generated by these DBDs. I have a beagle that would rip your throat out if she was given the chance. Lucky for me she is so fat she is out of breath by the time she stands up. Hmmm, sounds like the owner's fault! Isn't that the excuse we always hear from the owners of DBD dogs? ANY dog can be a biter. The only reason you hear of more pitbulls is because the media has demonised the breed. I have been bitten countless times by dogs in the rescues. NONE of them were large dogs. Au contraire, mon Frere! The breeds that are collectively referred to as pit bulls have biting abilities that are off the scale! Have you ever seen pictures of pit bulls hanging from a chicken carcasse that they are biting in the air? Imagine a beagle doing that! The last time that we had this 'Pit Bull' thread, it was determined that over a 20 year period, 66 folks in the United States, 80% of them children under 13, had died as the result of a pit bull attack. The next highest breed was German Shepherd with 44 dead during the same period. There IS a vast DIFFERENCE between being bitten by a pit bull and a beagle, my dear friend! Pits get into trouble because they are TAUGHT to be agressive or are mentally defective from inbreeding. So what is your beagle's excuse? Why is it so vicious? It's not a known breed for viciousness? Is it mentally defective? Or could it be the owner....? Eric The(Naw!)Hun

my beagles excuse is that my wife drove her crazy when she was a pup. The fact is i KNOW she is a bitter. As a result i go to EXTRA effort to isolate her from visitors. Something that I as a RESPONSIBLE pet owner SHOULD do. If the dog gets in a situation to attack it is the OWNERS fault. The dog is an animal. You can't fault MOST dogs for a natural behavior. There are some dogs that are naturally aggressive. My beagle for one. Owners should make a desicion to control them or put them down when this occurs.

As an EMT-P i responded to 1 large dog attack in 10 years of EMS service. I can't tell you how many small dog bites i responded to. Yes there is a difference in the amount of damage a large dog is capabale of. That is where RESPONSIBLE ownership comes in. Just like owning a gun. Responsibility is the key. As for insurance rates. Bullshit. My insurance is the same rate for ANY breed of dog i own. All they asked was do you own a dog? Yes or NO.

Norman74 should be along anytime with some statistics to help everyone understand.

Quoted: Norman74 should be along anytime with some statistics to help everyone understand.

Then I'm outta here!

The last time that happened, I was so pizzed with dogs that even Scooter avoided me for several days!

Eric The(Thanks,But,NoThanks!)Hun

you might also have some recourse against the city gov for failing to act.

mike

Well,
I just got a call from Ken.  I faxed over a list of the RCWs I cited earlier in this thread.  He must have know that I was getting serious.

Ken was able to tell me that Randy is enroute to Animal Control Services as we speak. Randy has Angel and is willingly letting them destroy her.

Ken asked me if I was willing to drop the charges.  I told him that 1) I am unable, as a corroborated assault with injury is something the State presses on, not the victom, and 2) I wouldn't even if it was my choice.  Turn it over to the DA.

We'll see where this goes.....

FMD,

I fully understand your position, I just don’t agree with it’s apologistic viewpoint.

I did not make up the term Dangerous Breed.  Ask your insurance carrier about it.  Quite possibly, it might be mentioned as such in some form of statuatory authority in your location.  I think it fair to use the term, especially in such instances.

More importantly, I have to discount any analogies between dogs and guns.  Guns don’t just go off.  My daughter wasn’t riding her bike when some gun just decided to go off.  Guns are inanimate, taking no action (nor reaction) on their own.  To a lesser extent, some irresponsible gun owner didn’t leave their gun on a counter that then just happened to go off on it’s own.

If your Jack Russel Terrier killed my cat, it would not be a Dangerous Breed Dog, it would be a Dangerous Dog (by statute).

I think the crux of your argument comes down to this quote:

There are no such things as "Dangerous Breeds". There are only irresponsible owners.

I disagree, so do insurance companies and some municipalities.  Even the DBD apologist refer to them, if only to say that they are really not dangerous.  The Federal Government uses the term “Dangerous Breed” (such as in the CDC study).  You might not like the term, but it exists and I feel appropriate to use.  If you want to make an argument that the term “Dangerous Breed” is a misnomer akin to “assault weapon”, I’ll listen to the argument, but I won’t discount the fact that the term is still valid.

Posted by FMD:  Posted by Stokes: Also, I fully understand that many people, including our fine friend Eric E, are responsible, caring owners of such dogs and a testament to the exception of the general stereotype about these dogs. You might be suprised to find that Eric E. is the rule, not the exception.

Please notice that I said “exception of the general stereotype”, and not exception to the rule.

Well,
I've just gotten another call from Ken.

I think I have Ken on the ropes, maybe getting ready to expose him with some problems.

Ken now tells me that Randy has no surety bond.  On Dec.19, 2003, Randy notified Animal Control Services that he would be removing Angel from the county and would no longer need the Dangerous Dog certificate or it's associated conditions.  I asked Ken what assurances (as required by TCC 9.10.070(F)(4)(c)) Randy had made to .the court.  He had no answer!

So, Randy has no money, says that he was taking the dog to southern Oregon, so now he can drop his surety bond and homeowners rider.  Animal control does not investigate, gets no assurances as required by law.

I think they are both in trouble now.

Edited to add:  Randy has brought the dog to Animal Control Services.  They notified him that he will more likely than not be charged and has possible civil liabilities.  They will quarentine the dog for 10 days to make sure it is disease free, then destroy it.
Randy is claiming that he just brought the dog back from Oregon on Friday.  This is utter BS, as we've seen the dog in his yard the last few months.  Either way, it's unregistered.

Keep saying it over and over to yourself:

'Vicious dogs are not our friends', 'Vicious dogs are not our friends', etc.....

In the meanwhile, I know that personal injury lawyers everywhere are sitting in lotus positions and chanting in unison:

'Vicious dogs belonging to insured homeowners are our bread and butter', 'Vicious dogs belonging to insured homeowners are our bread and butter', etc.

If there is a problem with some breeds of dogs, then personal injury trial lawyers, statisticians, civil juries, and insurance companies will make them disappear in due time.

Wanna bet?

Pit bulls will go the way of the original Piper Cub.

Eric The(BTW,IDespisePersonalInjuryTrialLawyers)Hun