Time for city to act
Tom and Peggy Myers, Emporia
Originally published 02:16 p.m., June 2, 2008
Updated 02:16 p.m., June 2, 2008
It is time for the Emporia City Commission to revisit the vicious dog/breed specific banning issues. The amount of public and private discussion, including blogging sent to The Gazette’s Web site, dictate that the governing body should give this some priority. The Pit Bull that attacked my sister-in-law, kept and allowed to be unrestrained across the street from the Walnut Elementary School playground, has now been declared “vicious” by the Emporia Municipal Court and has been put down. Horrible tragedy, narrowly missed on this and other occasions, is inevitable.
Any dog that snarls and lunges toward other domestic animals or people is giving warning of its temperament. That is ignored at our own public peril and has no place in civil society. Most of us have known Pit Bulls, Rottweilers or Dobermans with mild and gentle natures; that is not the issue. No law or ban is ever made for animal or human to protect against the unoffending, but these laws, nevertheless, govern all equally. There are approaches short of complete bans that have been employed by some communities, but some action is obviously necessary.
How many have seen these large breed, bad reputation dogs dragging their handlers down the street, unable to be controlled in any meaningful way and felt the fear of potential tragedy only inches away? How many have crossed the street to avoid the dog lunging and snarling in his enclosure or on her chain, or even quietly staring at you like prey. There can be no legitimate reason for the majority of the public to be forced to live with these fears in our own neighborhoods.
Like many cities, Emporia will eventually ban or otherwise legislate public protection from these types of dogs. There is only the question of whether it will be done before or after someone is mauled to death. The commission deals daily with many important priorities; no one knows this better than I, but surely this serious issue of public safety deserves a “front-burner” status on the agenda as soon as possible.
dalelinn (Dale Linn) says...
I am in total agreement about vicious animals. Some action needs to be taken about these animals before something happens. This brings to mind the time when our meter reader complained about our dog having bitten him. When I stated to the contact at the power company that our dog could not have been the offender, she explained to me that owners did not always know what their dog was doing when they weren't around. I asked to have meter reader to please come to our house to see what he was accusing. Our dog was very small & could hardly bite a grown person & the meter reader very quickly exonerated our dog.
Back to the subject. Everytime laws are passed, we lose freedom. So many laws have been enacted & the government (mostly federal) have usurped so much power, can we still call this the "land of the free"? I cringe everytime I hear the highway patrol threaten me (on televison) with their "Click it or ticket" message. So much with being free. Total bans take away more freedom.
June 2, 2008 at 6:10 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
hottopics (anonymous) says...
I am so glad to see someone else get involved in this. I am more pleased to find out that the dog owners did have to go through the courts and this dog can harm no one else. But what about the other Pit Bull this guys owns??????
If we dont get tougher laws on dogs at large, nuisance dog, vicious dog etc, someone is going to be killed.
My neighbor has a full pit and she is dragged down the street with no control over his powerful force when she attempts to walk him. I fear for my safety and my children every day.
Thank you for taking the time to keep this front and center in our newspaper. We need more people to join in rather than just root on the sidelines.
June 2, 2008 at 10:45 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
CassieJo (anonymous) says...
From what I have read in past articles Tater Bug was killed by a neighborhood .. Pit Bull-Siberian Husky Mix .... should we consider all Siberian Huskys vicious ticking time bombs as well???
June 3, 2008 at 12:56 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
CassieJo (anonymous) says...
Posted by hickory (anonymous) on October 11, 2006 at 4:22 p.m.
Another truly unfortunate thing about this story is the fact that Tricia Segobia's dog was running at large and NOT visiting the other woman's yard. Not only was the dog at large, it had also been in the yard of the dog that killed it. Its called protecting its territory. It's really sad that someone has to make a truly miserable incident even more miserable. I hope that when Ms. Segobia gets the laws changed that she is the first to realize that her dog could have been saved had it not been running around the neighborhood. The dog that killed was in a fenced yard. And followed Ms. Segobia's dog OUT of its own territory. Remember Mr. Kelley, there really are two sides to every story. It saddens me that the young adult's involved in this are having to bear the embarassment of having this published so many times. They really do feel bad for what happened. Maybe you ought to ask Ms. Segobia how much she extorted from the insurance company over the loss of the dogs. THAT didn't seem to bother her in the least. The blood wasn't even dried when she demanded money for the loss of the dog. She has yet to make restitution for the damage her dog did, not only to the one but to another in the same family.
Sounds like there is more to the story ...
I
June 3, 2008 at 1:25 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
hottopics (anonymous) says...
You need to get your facts straight before shouting out such lame accusations. Tater was in the neighbors yard, to whom he visited all the time and he knew he could go there to play with the other dog that was viciously mutilated as well. Mrs. Ray knew he was in the yard. There were TWO dogs killed by the hands of that pit bull mix. And as for compensation by the insurance company, thats what insurance is for. Mrs. Ray who was 75 at the time was completely mortified at what that dog did to her pet, Tara. She was gutted and layed there dying a slow painful death. Tara was in her own back yard minding her own business when that dog, which by the way had previous issues told by the owner when he came in to kill. They kept him chained to a tree because of his problems. They were given the opportunity to have that dog kill again because he was sent back to the owner before court. That is what prompted the change in the ordinance.
Makes me sick to think you are trying to justify dogs gutting other defenseless animals just to prove your own untrue theories.
The insurance company paid TWO CLAIMS and cancelled the home owners insurance for owning a Pit Bull with Pit mix pups.
And why would someone wait to file a claim if damages are there. Do you wait to file a claim on hail damage, car wrecks, etc. NO! The insurance company wanted to settle it very fast, they didnt even try to argue the case.
Make sure you get your facts straight before attempting to discredit people.
Safety is the only reason this is a on going issue. Own a pit bull, I dont care, just keep it away from us, our kids, our pets. And be able to pay up when something goes horribly wrong.
June 3, 2008 at 12:51 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
CassieJo (anonymous) says...
LOL I copied my post directly from the gazette articles!!!
http://www.emporiagazette.com/news/20...
http://www.emporiagazette.com/news/20...
http://www.emporiagazette.com/news/20...
http://www.emporiagazette.com/news/20...
I posted in my own words "Sounds like there is more to the story ..." the rest is in the links above!!!!
June 3, 2008 at 1:14 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
CassieJo (anonymous) says...
lame accusations ?? puh-leeze
June 3, 2008 at 1:18 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
CassieJo (anonymous) says...
Part 1
Pit bulls only as dangerous as their owners, ASPCA tells city
http://www.emporiagazette.com/news/20...
A Web-based seminar on dangerous dogs had a simple message for Emporia city commissioners: Blame the owners, not the breeds.
"There is no data to support the idea that a particular breed of dog is vicious," said Debora Bresch, legislative liaison for the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, which held the seminar Monday afternoon. "It's the owner's behavior that needs to be addressed."
The city commission is set to look at its "vicious dog" ordinance on Nov. 22 at the request of Emporia resident Tricia Segobia. Recently, a Siberian husky-pit bull mix killed a dog Segobia had given to a friend, then killed a neighbor's dog after the mix was released from the animal shelter. The mixed-breed was not considered "vicious" under Emporia law because it had not harmed or killed a human.
Segobia has asked for Emporia to better enforce its animal-control laws and to tighten the laws it has. Among other things, she wants a dog to be considered "vicious" if it has attacked or killed a pet and she has asked that the city require owners of "notorious breeds" to register their dogs and insure them.
At the seminar, however, Bresch and ASPCA attorney Ledy VanKavage said that breed-specific legislation tends to be ineffective. One of the most sweeping examples, a nationwide ban of pit bulls that Britain adopted in 1991, had no impact on the number of dog bites in the country, a study found. And this year, a circuit court found a breed ban to be unconstitutional in Toledo vs. Tellings, which said a ban violated equal protection and due process rights since there was no reason to declare the American pit bull terrier to be inherently dangerous.
Requiring owners to insure dogs such as a doberman or a rottweiler tends to be tantamount to a ban, the two ASPCA representatives said, since few companies will insure them -- even though, they said, dog bites cost an insurance company far less than floods or fires and occur less frequently. Between 12 and 24 people die each year from dog bites, VanKavage said.
"More people are killed by lightning each year," she said. But the media quickly picks up on pit bull attacks, she noted, even when other, more severe dog attacks occur. On June 9, she said, 41 publications covered a girl who was seriously, but not critically, injured by two pit bulls. On the same day, a boy who needed 300 stitches after being mauled by a Labrador retriever-mix drew coverage from only two papers.
June 3, 2008 at 4:39 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
CassieJo (anonymous) says...
Part 2
"In the '70s, it was the doberman," VanKavage said. "In the '80s, it was the German shepherd. In the '90s it was the rottweiler and now it's the pit bull. But getting rid of the breed doesn't get rid of the problem."
So if it's not any one breed, what makes a dog likely to attack? The two women listed three main factors.
• 90 percent of fatal dog attacks came from animals that were not spayed or neutered.
• 81 percent of fatal dog attacks came from animals that were not maintained as a pet, but were instead isolated from the family and regular human contact.
• 61 percent of those attacks came from animals that were not humanely controlled, or had in some way been abused or neglected.
Given those conditions, they said, communities have taken a number of different approaches. Some have partially subsidized the cost of neutering a pet for those unable to afford it. In Delaware, for example, the cost has been brought down to $10 to $20, paid for in part by a $3 surcharge on rabies shots. In addition, veteranarians are offered a $50 tax credit for each combined vaccination and sterilization they do.
It doesn't take long to recoup those costs, Bresch said.
June 3, 2008 at 4:40 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
hottopics (anonymous) says...
I guess if your children had to watch their family pet be choked and shaken to death and then another be gutted before their eyes you would think differently.
Once again, its not about the friggin breed, its about the city enforcing proper containment of potentially dangerous dogs.
Until it happens to you, you have no right to judge my opinion. Just as I have to put up with yours.
June 3, 2008 at 7:40 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
lyco (anonymous) says...
This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.
June 3, 2008 at 3:42 p.m. ( permalink )
wyse_guy (anonymous) says...
This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.
June 3, 2008 at 4:57 p.m. ( permalink )
etbmfa (anonymous) says...
Let's Stop Canine Racial Profiling!!
A dangerous dog is a dangerous dog and can be ANY breed - it's about the owners NOT the Breed.
To begin with, there is no breed called "pit bull". Pit Bull was a term used for "many" breeds that were used to fight in the pits. Actually in 1989 when the AKC took the NYC Department Of Health to the Supreme Court to over-turn the Pit Bull Ban in NYC, one argument they used was, there is no such breed as pit bull. I have been involved in canine legislation for approximately 30 years and have yet to have city council members, police officer, etc. correctly identify breeds when I show them photos of various short haired dogs. Anything with short hair is identified by the media as a "pit bull".
Our laws should identify illegal activities and define the penalties associated with breaches of the law. Domesticated canines are considered personal property and present problems in society only when owned or tossed out by irresponsible people. Our laws should address irresponsible canine ownership and should never refer to specific breeds.
Breed specific legislation is an intolerable form of discrimination that has many undesirable far reaching consequences, including economic ones. Breed specific legislation is expensive and difficult to enforce; impacts people who both live in and visit jurisdictions; impacts vets, breeders, dog food manufacturers, and, in many cases, canine divisions of various law enforcement agencies. To make matters worse, canine racial profiling (breed specific legislation) is a total waste of time and money, as it will not turn irresponsible owners and breeders into responsible owners and breeders. Irresponsible canine ownership can only be prevented by addressing the problem directly: define the problem, define the penalty or penalties, and enforce the laws. Most urban jurisdictions have laws on the books now that, if enforced, would eliminate most dog aggression disasters. The best defense against dangerous dogs is a strongly enforced LEASH LAW - not outlawing a breed. The outlaws will simply ruin another breed.
June 4, 2008 at 10:51 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )