polarexpress
Posted : 5/3/2007 8:35:49 AM
ORIGINAL: stardog85
What I think is almost more horrid is the fact that this likely wouldn't have happened if George's owner had actually been supervising his dog - he's calling for leash laws to be enforced now, but he didn't even know about the attack until the vet called him after someone else brought George in...
Really? So before the attack George opened a gate and let the two other dogs out so they could fight with him later? It was
his fault that he was ripped up so badly that he had to be put down?
Yes, I read your post and I see that you are saying it is George's owner's responsibility for not supervising his dog, but that does boil down to George somehow provoking the incident.
Interesting perspective.
I am opposed to BSL and every pit I have met has been a sweetheart and I tell people this when folks say bad things about the breed.
However, I find some aspects of this thread disturbing. There seems to be a quick reaction that oh, the dogs couldn't have been after the kids---they were after George all along and if it were another breed, this would have been reported differently...
Just as some are quick to blame the breed for the deed, it seems that some are quick to excuse the dogs BECAUSE of their breed.
Think about it. If it were dogs of another breed that ripped George up, how many people would argue they were after George all along?
Perhaps the dogs were after George, but we weren't there---other eyewitnesses were. We'll have to take their word on what it looked like. We also don't know the history of the dogs in question--or of George.
For all we know the dogs were after the kids and if George hadn't been there, the kids would have been bitten.
Bottom line: I feel bad about the whole situation. The kids were terrified and a dog is dead. It should never have happened and if George's owner makes sure leash laws are enforced from now on it will be a tragedy which won't be repeated.
Just something to think about.
[sm=2cents.gif]