“Ban the breed. And aggressively prosecute the owner of any vicious dog, of any type.” The Bay City Times says that not only pit bulls but other dangerous dogs need to be eliminated, because of the horrible injuries and deaths they inflict regularly. (Click here to read the article.)
This year’s death count can be found on the home page of Dog Bite Law (dogbitelaw.com), and details about canine homicides for the past several years are at Dangerous and Vicious Dogs.
Before jumping on the bandwagon of this or any other solution to the dog bite problem, read Preventing Dog Bites. I and many other experts feel that, rather than banning any breed, the most rational and politically “do-able” approach would be to pass laws that would keep certain high-risk breeds away from the wrong people, places and situations.
The Bay City Times is a daily newspaper published in Bay City, Michigan, United States. The paper has a circulation of 33,000 daily and 42,000 Sunday editions, and is the most widely-circulated newspaper in northeastern Michigan. The newspaper began in 1873 and remains one of the oldest newspapers still in circulation.
Brian O’Neal McDonald, 29, of Chappell Hill, Texas, has been indicted for animal attack causing serious bodily injury, a third degree felony. On January 10, 2009, William Whiddon Jr., 49, was mauled by McDonald’s dogs, which included a German shepherd, a pit bull and one dog of an unknown breed. (To read more, click here.)
Texas has some of the most severe criminal laws against dog owners whose dogs injure people. (See Texas.) Despite its readiness to punish dog owners, however, the state adheres to the ancient one bite rule, which makes it difficult for innocent dog bite victims to make necessary insurance claims.
On March 28, 2009, 48-year-old Gordon Lykins of Winterhaven, Calif. was attacked by dogs near a drainage canal road a few miles north of Yuma, Arizona. He died on April 10, 2009, from those injuries. (To read the article, click here.)
It is believed that up to 11 dogs were involved in this attack. The dogs, of mixed breeds, apparently were loose at the time of the attack. However, the details of the attack are not sufficiently provable at this time, because Lykins was kept under sedation while being treated. Therefore the police are searching for witnesses to the mauling.
This is another unusual death. Nevertheless, one factor from the Dog Attack Danger Scale apparently was present here: the pack mentality. Three dogs are worse than 2, 4 are worse than 3, etc. Docile dogs often become uncharacteristically violent and vicious when they are in a pack. In 2008, 39% of the fatalities involved multiple dogs.
David B. Whiteneck Jr., 41, of Huron County, Michigan, was killed by a number of dogs belonging to his elderly, absent landlord. The date of death has not been determined, but the body was found on April 13, 2009. The dogs were Australian shepherds mixed with blue heeler. This is the 13th USA fatality by dogs in 2009.
Two factors on the Dog Attack Danger Scale were present here:
To learn more, see the Dog Attack Danger Scale. Michigan is a strict liability state.
No matter what the law says, dog bite victims usually do not receive the compensation provided by law. Consider this: despite the fact that over 1,000 dog bite victims per day are treated in USA emergency rooms, the insurance industry pays only 65 dog bite claims per day. That means less than 7 of 100 dog bite victims can count on being compensated. Does this sound fair to you?
Many of the dangerous dog laws currently in effect in our cities and counties need provisions that will protect the privacy and rights of dog bite victims.
Victims of dog bites have had their privacy violated when their personal medical files have been handed to dog owners without any limitations as to what they could see or how they could use the information. I have personally been threatened by animal control officers who did not want me to even ask questions at dangerous dog hearings. In the message I received, below, the victim relates how the animal control officer induced her to inadvertently waive her right to compensation.
The dog in my attack had a record. Here is the "deal" I made with AC about my attack. It involved dropping criminal charges -- this "DEAL" was presented to me just after I left my 2-day hospital stay and had not yet acquired an attorney -- in exchange for getting the dog owner to put the dog down. Only much later do I learn that "dropping criminal charges" eliminated my chances of being eligible for the WA Felony Victim Fund.
I do NOT know if my attack would have qualified for a felony in my state. My injury did qualify as "severe" under state law because my arm was broken. I never followed this up because I was too angry, and I am still too angry.
How many victims are being offered this "deal" while lying in a hospital room without an attorney present? This is what makes me angry.