Marauding pit bulls attack six - 10 year old boy, Critical

[Casshew]

I don't own a pit bull, but I have friends that do. Their dogs are sweet and lovable and well .............well to tell the truth.......... huge sissys! One is terrified of my cat. ( The cat knows this and really enjoys chasing the wuss)

and this is the big problem, there are no telltale signs - to warn you that their temperment is changing.... the next thing you know they have killed a cat, or a child or attacked someone out of the blue.

I hope these people are careful

 

[Details]

and this is the big problem, there are no telltale signs - to warn you that their temperment is changing.... the next thing you know they have killed a cat, or a child or attacked someone out of the blue.

I hope these people are careful

It's true, to a degree, for all dogs. The differences are how likely they are to snap, how badly they injure someone once they do snap, and how hard is it to get them off of someone once they do snap - a harsh word, or does it require 4 bullets into the dog before they quit.

Labs hardly ever snap. Little dogs snap all the time, but don't injure people too seriously and are easy to get away from. But a big dog with an agression problem that doesn't like to let go is the worst combo.

Growing up we had a stupid little cockapoo dog who all at once charged the door and bit the mailman. Boy, talk about someone with no sense of humor about those kinds of things (not that I'd expect him to have one, but we were pretty young, and he was quite serious). Fortunately Toby didn't break the skin. But that's because he was a small dog. He also immediately backed off and ran away when we yelled when he bit the mailman. No hanging on, no problem. He snapped, but since he's a small dog, it didn't cause any injury, disfigurement, trauma, nor death. If we had had a pet pitbull - the outcome would have been far, far different.

 

[SadieMae]

I know I have posted this before but not on this thread. My FIL was attacked by a Dobe that was his baby for years. He required skin grafting as his arm was almost totally obliterated. It still took them weeks to put down this dog. I personally hated the dog as I always saw how evil he was.

I read that post CP, sorry what happened to your FIL. My dobe was like a child to me, as I had no children then. My husband at the time did get 12 stitches on his arm. So I guess he was pretty lucky.

 

[curlytone]

- what matters are the statistics - the hard numbers that say that as a group, they do attack more than any other dog breed

Your right, and I have been using statistics all along. News stories are not statistics. Word of mouth stories are not statistics. The "hard numbers" say that PIT BULL and PIT BULL TYPE dogs (which encompases more than one breed of dog) KILL (not attack as you say) more than any other singular breed over the last 36 years. During the 1990s it was actually Rottweilers. That said, they kill, on average 2.5 people per year. That is one more person a year than Rottweilers or German Sheapards. 13 people die every year from flamming pajamas, flamming pajamas FCOL.

These statistics are also raw numbers, they have no interpertion. They do not take into account how many dogs of each breed exist in the population, cirumstance or any other interpertaion. Someone else pointed out that if pit bulls make up 21% of the dog population then the statistics do not show a disproportionate number of deaths. This is closer, but it is not accurate either. Pit bulls do not have to make up 21% of all dogs, just 21% of the dogs on the list of killer dogs. I would argue that pit bull and pit bull type dogs are the most common dogs on that list. In many neighborhoods they make of 20-40% of TOTAL dog population. The human society, the ACK, and the American Veterinary Medical Association all used the same statistics that you are using. I think they have more basis to interpret the data than you or myself.

Pit Bull and Pit-bull-type dogs (21%),
Mixed breed dogs (16%),
Rottweilers (13%),
German Shepherd Dogs (9%),
Wolf Dogs (5%),
Siberian Huskies (5%),
Malamutes (4%),
Great Danes (3%),
St. Bernards (3%),
Chow Chows (3%),
Doberman Pinschers (3%),
other breeds & non-specified breeds (15%).

What happens if we apply your practice of using statistics to prove a point without attempting to interpret them?

48% of inmates are African American, yet they are not 48% of the population. Do you think that we can make any conclusions with that statistic without taking the proper steps to analyze WHY the statistic is the way it is?

 

[Details]

I was the one to point out that in order to know what the stat meant, we needed to know how many pit bulls there were in the American dog population during that time.

But I see plenty of dogs, and there's no way that 1 in 5 is a pitbull. I see lots of labs, shepherds, pure mutts (tons of mutts), the occasional retriever - I see very few pit bulls. So my suspicion is that the 21% kills by pitbulls is extremely higher than the percentage of pit bulls in america, and that says that they kill out of proportion to their numbers - that they are a problem.

 

[curlytone]

Curly, then why in a lot cases, the PB owner's say the dog was never aggressive or attacked anyone before they killed? The owners say dogs had not shown any aggressiveness, then the next thing you know it kills. .

\

From my original post:
"Also, many people in this thread describe pit bulls as ready to “snap” or “turn without notice”. Since nobody seems to have owned one, and only one person said that they have a friend who owned two, I can only infer that these descriptions are based on the media reports where owners of the dog describe the history of the dog. If we think about this for a minute: The owner’s dog has just hurt or killed someone. Police officers and reporters are asking about the dog. How likely is it that the owner is going to say, “Oh yeah, Rex has always been vicious. In fact, it was just a matter of time until this was going to happen. What, with all that illegal fighting that I’ve been training him for, I am surprised that this was his first kill.”? Of course they are going to say that the dog was always nice, if the owner has any chance of avoiding criminal charges or lawsuits, they must say that. How many people actually take responsibility for their negligence these days? The story that started this whole thread states that the incident is being investigated as a criminal matter. What are the chances that anyone will read the results of the investigations?"

Also, some signs or precursors to aggressiveness are not known by a lot of people. do a quick search.
Here are some:
*Respond to eye contact with a prolonged, direct stare.
*Growl spontaneously.
*Mount legs.
*Guard its food.
*Guard its sleeping area.
*"Demand" to be petted and let outside.
*Resist being placed in submissive postures or situations.
*Become more aggressive with physical punishment.
*Block the movements of family members in the home.
*Become glassy-eyed during aggressive incidents.

Also, many people do not want to admit that they missed warning signs that could have prevented a tragedy. The same thing happens when peoples family members end up murdering someone. Many people say, "he was so nice". In most cases there probably were warning signs.

I am not saying that there aren't fluke cases, but it certainly isn't the normal scenario. Ask youself what news story would evoke more emotion and readership: "Loving family pet kills 5 year old" or "Gaurd dog defends home, killing intruder".

I fully respect your decision to not trust the breed and not to want one. The problem I have is when people try to impose what they want on me.

 

[curlytone]

I was the one to point out that in order to know what the stat meant, we needed to know how many pit bulls there were in the American dog population during that time.

But I see plenty of dogs, and there's no way that 1 in 5 is a pitbull. I see lots of labs, shepherds, pure mutts (tons of mutts), the occasional retriever - I see very few pit bulls. So my suspicion is that the 21% kills by pitbulls is extremely higher than the percentage of pit bulls in america, and that says that they kill out of proportion to their numbers - that they are a problem.

I am sincerely glad that you acknowledge that. Again, if pit bulls make up 21% of the dogs on the list of killer dogs, not just the general dog population (labs and retrievers are not in that list), then it is out of proportion. If it is out of proportion, which it could be, then ask yourself WHY. That is the point of mentioning the inmate statistic. It is out of proportion. However, sociologists ask WHY it is out of proportion. We don't base social agendas solely on a quick glance at the numbers. We look for the root causes and try to address those. So back to dogs. IF it is out of proportion, then WHY? Many people only look at the breed. There are many other options, and the one that I believe, is that a disproportionate number of people with bad intentions seek out the breed and then develop bad characteristics in individual pit bulls. It doesn't take many people doing this to skew the numbers.

Look at the breeds that have topped the lists. In the 1970s it was dobermans, in the 1980s it was pit bulls, in the 1990s it was Rottweilers. Now it is back to pit bulls. What do all of these dogs have in common, besides size and strength? They are all considered by many people to be guard and protect dogs. 40% of people who buy dogs list "for a guard dog" as one of their reasons for getting the dog. I would imagine that many of these people train their dogs to be "guard dogs". So now, if the dog is put in the position to do what it was purchased and trained for and it kills the intruder, the death of the intruder is logged as a "1" in the statistics above, and the breed responsible is only logged as having killed someone.

If your neighborhood is representative of every other neighborhood in the country, then the tallies that you provide would be accurate to broaden to the rest of the US. However, I am very confident that any 1 neighborhood can't be generalized to fit even a fraction of the neighborhoods in the country. I have been in many neighborhoods where the only dogs you see are pit bulls. I just called my friend (the one who's pit bull protected him from an attacking rohdesian ridgeback) who grew up in a neighborhood right outside of a large city. I asked him how many dogs in his neighborhood where pit bulls. His response, "AT LEAST 95% of them". I have seen estimates that put the number of pit bulls at 5 million nationwide.

My main argument is that eliminating a breed is not the answer to a real problem. If you get rid of pit bulls, most of the owners who lost their dogs will get a new dog. Will they switch to a rat terrier? Probably not. Will they get another medium-large dog? Likely. Will the owners who were irresponsible with their pit bull be irresponsible with whatever breed they decide to get. I would put my money on YES.

 

[SadieMae]

I don't care who wants to own a pit bull, that's their decision. But if a neighbor of mine gets one, I'll be first to tell them to check to make sure they have plenty of insurance, and if their dog ever got loose and attacked anyone in my family or my dogs, I won't wait for the police to shoot it. I've already had that experience of my dogs being attacked by a pit bull.

Curly, you are probably a responsible owner and you have researched and know the breed. I don't know anything about the breed other than what I read or have heard about them, all negative. I personally don't know anyone who owns one at the moment. I'd say, and correct me if I'm wrong, the majority of owners know nothing about the breed or how to properly train it. All they know is they have a pit and they probably got it from some backyard breeder or puppymill. I think the only way to save the breed is selective breeding of the least aggressive dogs only. It will take time for sure. In researching the history of the Great Dane, they at one time had a pretty bad rap for being vicious attack dogs. The aggressive behavior was bred out of them, and as cruel as it sounds, puppies showing aggressiveness were destroyed. It was posted that pits were nannies to babies a long time ago. I believe that, but poor breeding has created a dog people don't trust and fear.

 

[LinasK]

I am sincerely glad that you acknowledge that. Again, if pit bulls make up 21% of the dogs on the list of killer dogs, not just the general dog population (labs and retrievers are not in that list), then it is out of proportion. If it is out of proportion, which it could be, then ask yourself WHY. That is the point of mentioning the inmate statistic. It is out of proportion. However, sociologists ask WHY it is out of proportion. We don't base social agendas solely on a quick glance at the numbers. We look for the root causes and try to address those. So back to dogs. IF it is out of proportion, then WHY? Many people only look at the breed. There are many other options, and the one that I believe, is that a disproportionate number of people with bad intentions seek out the breed and then develop bad characteristics in individual pit bulls. It doesn't take many people doing this to skew the numbers.

Look at the breeds that have topped the lists. In the 1970s it was dobermans, in the 1980s it was pit bulls, in the 1990s it was Rottweilers. Now it is back to pit bulls. What do all of these dogs have in common, besides size and strength? They are all considered by many people to be guard and protect dogs. 40% of people who buy dogs list "for a guard dog" as one of their reasons for getting the dog. I would imagine that many of these people train their dogs to be "guard dogs". So now, if the dog is put in the position to do what it was purchased and trained for and it kills the intruder, the death of the intruder is logged as a "1" in the statistics above, and the breed responsible is only logged as having killed someone.

If your neighborhood is representative of every other neighborhood in the country, then the tallies that you provide would be accurate to broaden to the rest of the US. However, I am very confident that any 1 neighborhood can't be generalized to fit even a fraction of the neighborhoods in the country. I have been in many neighborhoods where the only dogs you see are pit bulls. I just called my friend (the one who's pit bull protected him from an attacking rohdesian ridgeback) who grew up in a neighborhood right outside of a large city. I asked him how many dogs in his neighborhood where pit bulls. His response, "AT LEAST 95% of them". I have seen estimates that put the number of pit bulls at 5 million nationwide.

My main argument is that eliminating a breed is not the answer to a real problem. If you get rid of pit bulls, most of the owners who lost their dogs will get a new dog. Will they switch to a rat terrier? Probably not. Will they get another medium-large dog? Likely. Will the owners who were irresponsible with their pit bull be irresponsible with whatever breed they decide to get. I would put my money on YES.

I agree with 95% of your post. Labs and goldens are not part of the stats, because their bites/attacks are not fatal. Most retrievers are bred to be very tolerant of children. Yes, they can fight to the death, I had to pull apart two large male Labs who were going for each others throats. The difference-neither dog harmed me when I pulled them apart.

I believe banning pit bulls/eliminating them- the most vicious dog- is the answer to a real problem. You claim all these wonderful things about your pit bull, we'll see what you have to say when (not if) it harms somebody, possibly even yourself. I have good friends who were professional dog trainers, temperment trainers and neither of them would ever own a pit bull, let alone have one anywhere near their children! These dogs are psychologically inbred to snap with no provocation even at their owners. You can take that risk, I never will. My daughter is not allowed over the the next-door neighbors or the other neighbors down the block who both have 1/2 pit bulls.

 

[Casshew]

This is the reality of pitbulls in society

Five-year-old Jordan Wisby was walking home from school in Illawong in Sydney's south when a neighbour's American pitbull savagely attacked him.

Jordan suffered multiple lacerations to his head, throat, left arm and back during the horrifying attack which was witnessed by his eight-year-old brother Mitchell.

 

[curlytone]

no way that 1 in 5 is a pitbull

Just so that we are all on the same page with these numbers:
Pit Bull and Pit-bull-type dogs (21%),
Mixed breed dogs (16%)
Rottweilers (13%)
German Shepherd Dogs (9%)
Wolf Dogs (5%),
Siberian Huskies (5%)
Malamutes (4%)
Great Danes (3%)
St. Bernards (3%)
Chow Chows (3%)
Doberman Pinschers (3%)
other breeds & non-specified breeds (15%).

That is 21% of the 431 dog realted deaths from 1965-2001 were caused by pit bull or pit bull type dogs, or 91 deaths in 36 years. For Rottweilers, it is 13% of 431, or 56 and so on. If you add all the percentages it totals 100%. These numbers have nothing to do with the general dog population. If you want to compare proportions amongst killer breeds, you can only look at the ones that have offended. What I mean is, obviously 21% of the dogs in the U.S are not pit bulls, but 13% are not rottweilers, and 9% are not German Shepards, and so on down the line. If they were, the list above would cover every dog in the U.S., but we all know that there are hundreds of different breeds. (NOTE that if you find the CDC reports that these number came from, they say 36 breeds have killed, so the "other breeds" section above covers about 25 breeds not listed by name).

 

[kgeaux]

\

From my original post:
"Also, many people in this thread describe pit bulls as ready to “snap” or “turn without notice”. Since nobody seems to have owned one, and only one person said that they have a friend who owned two, I can only infer that these descriptions are based on the media reports where owners of the dog describe the history of the dog. If we think about this for a minute: The owner’s dog has just hurt or killed someone. Police officers and reporters are asking about the dog. How likely is it that the owner is going to say, “Oh yeah, Rex has always been vicious. In fact, it was just a matter of time until this was going to happen. What, with all that illegal fighting that I’ve been training him for, I am surprised that this was his first kill.”? Of course they are going to say that the dog was always nice, if the owner has any chance of avoiding criminal charges or lawsuits, they must say that. How many people actually take responsibility for their negligence these days? The story that started this whole thread states that the incident is being investigated as a criminal matter. What are the chances that anyone will read the results of the investigations?"

Also, some signs or precursors to aggressiveness are not known by a lot of people. do a quick search.
Here are some:
*Respond to eye contact with a prolonged, direct stare.
*Growl spontaneously.
*Mount legs.
*Guard its food.
*Guard its sleeping area.
*"Demand" to be petted and let outside.
*Resist being placed in submissive postures or situations.
*Become more aggressive with physical punishment.
*Block the movements of family members in the home.
*Become glassy-eyed during aggressive incidents.

Also, many people do not want to admit that they missed warning signs that could have prevented a tragedy. The same thing happens when peoples family members end up murdering someone. Many people say, "he was so nice". In most cases there probably were warning signs.

I am not saying that there aren't fluke cases, but it certainly isn't the normal scenario. Ask youself what news story would evoke more emotion and readership: "Loving family pet kills 5 year old" or "Gaurd dog defends home, killing intruder".

I fully respect your decision to not trust the breed and not to want one. The problem I have is when people try to impose what they want on me.

I own a pit. My son brought this little puppy home that he rescued--he bought him for $400 from a guy that was planning to use him as bait in a fight....He's beautiful, loyal and friendly. He passed our veternarians rigourous testing to be declared non-aggressive. I don't remember all of the testing, but I do know that Ninja was required to show his belly to the vet, to the vet with assistants, and to the vet when another dog was in the room. He had to sit and stay seated even when the vet made a "move" toward me. He had to sit quietly and not become agitated when the vet made prolonged eye contact with him. Ninja passed with flying colors. I love him and trust him with ADULTS, when I am present. The vet did recommend that we not have more than one pit at a time since they do form packs and become more aggressive if they are egging each other on.....I've seen that in person, and it is a scary sight to behold.

He has been well socialized, he has been mixed repeatedly with other animals and required to behave. He is, as my husband says, a real quality animal. I love his big square head and his deep chest, I love that bulldog strut when we take him out walking. I love the way he wags his whole body and not just his tail when he is happy.

I trust this dog with my life. But not with everyone's life...................... my dog is NEVER allowed outside unleashed, he is never alone with children, and if children visit my home, my sweet puppy wears a muzzle. Pits have strong jaws and if the worst were to happen, the potential for tragedy is there.....so hence, the muzzle. We do not let him alone with other animals for the same reason.

I love my dog, he fell into my home by accident, but I am so glad he is here. I know that I would never in a million years have gone out and gotten this dog on purpose, and when Ninja "passes on" I don't know if I would get another, but this one dog is wonderful.

 

[curlytone]

I agree with 95% of your post. Labs and goldens are not part of the stats, because their bites/attacks are not fatal. Most retrievers are bred to be very tolerant of children. Yes, they can fight to the death, I had to pull apart two large male Labs who were going for each others throats. The difference-neither dog harmed me when I pulled them apart.

I believe banning pit bulls/eliminating them- the most vicious dog- is the answer to a real problem. You claim all these wonderful things about your pit bull, we'll see what you have to say when (not if) it harms somebody, possibly even yourself. I have good friends who were professional dog trainers, temperment trainers and neither of them would ever own a pit bull, let alone have one anywhere near their children! These dogs are psychologically inbred to snap with no provocation even at their owners. You can take that risk, I never will. My daughter is not allowed over the the next-door neighbors or the other neighbors down the block who both have 1/2 pit bulls.

They kill 2.5 people per year, there are and estimated 50 million dogs in the US and 250 million people, I think that my odds are fine. The percent of pit bulls that bite someone is absolutely miniscule. Pit bulls have been around for a long long time, why is it that they have come under fire in the last 20 years? What changed? The fact that you think that a pit bull bitting is a gauranteed thing shows your supreme lack of understanding of the issue.

 

[curlytone]

This is the reality of pitbulls in society

http://www.smh.com.au/ffximage/2005/04/30/wisby_narrowweb__200x291.jpg

Five-year-old Jordan Wisby was walking home from school in Illawong in Sydney's south when a neighbour's American pitbull savagely attacked him.

Jordan suffered multiple lacerations to his head, throat, left arm and back during the horrifying attack which was witnessed by his eight-year-old brother Mitchell.

I've already explained why trusting 1, 10, 100 media stories and basing your opinion on that is not even remotely reliable. I agree that there are hundreds of bad stories about pit bulls. But they don't tell you about any other stories. 17 people are killed by dogs every year, 2.5 by pit bulls. That leaves an average of 14.5 deaths by other dogs EVERY year. Find me those news stories and I might take your media-only approach seriously.

 

[Casshew]

I've already explained why trusting 1, 10, 100 media stories and basing your opinion on that is not even remotely reliable.

News coverage is much more reliable than anything you say. :hand:

kgeaux ~ you are obviously an aware and responsible pet owner :blowkiss:

 

[SadieMae]

Please tell me that you are kidding. My god, I was proving a point, I also think that a dog that attacks should be put down. It is a hypothetical statement. The point was to show that Details agument about Pit Bulls not attacking all the time because they are trying to appease people is baseless. The dog doesn't know what you want it to do unless it has done the action and you told it not to, on repeated occasions.

Try reading it again NOT JUST THE PARTS YOU MADE RED:

Here are the two options:
1) A pit bull IS NOT born with a desire to attack people - MY POSITION
2) A pit bull IS born with a desire to attack people, but since very few actually do, it must be restraining itself for the sake of appeasing its owner and it is only a matter of time before it snaps. -DETAILS' POSITION

IF you believe number 2, explain to me how the dog knows not that you do not want it to attack unless you follow the hypothetical training scenario I gave? Dogs do not know what we want of them until we teach them. Since they are not clairvoyant, they can't read our minds. So, to get a dog to the point that it knows that it is not supposed to attack, but it really wants to as DETAILS suggests, it would have had to of attacked already and you scolded it. IF you have done all this, there is no way that it would be suprising if the dog "snapped", and in fact it would not be snapping beacuse you have seen the behavior before.

If you decide that learning about the issue is for you, but you are crunched for time, read the Human Societies stance:
http://www.hsus.org/pets/issues_affecting_our_pets/dangerous_dogs.html

I hope that we can at least agree that maybe they are in good position make a conclusion on the issue.

Also
"A study performed by the American Veterinary Medical Association, the CDC, and the Humane Society of the United States, analyzed dog bite statistics from the last 20 years and found that the statistics don't show that any breeds are inherently more dangerous than others. The study showed that the most popular large breed dogs at any one time were consistently on the list of breeds that bit fatally. There were a high number of fatal bites from Doberman pinschers in the 1970s, for example, because Dobermans were very popular at that time and there were more Dobermans around, and because Dobermans'size makes their bites more dangerous. The number of fatal bites from pit bulls rose in the 1980s for the same reason, and the number of bites from rottweilers in the 1990s. The study also noted that there are no reliable statistics for nonfatal dog bites, so there is no way to know how often smaller breeds are biting."

But why beleive the experts in the field???????

I agree with Details. I've owned 8 Great Danes in 25 years. 3 were puppies from championship bloodlines and 5 were rescue Danes varying in ages 10mos-3years old when I adopted them. Not one of them ever displayed any aggressive/attack behavior. Never growled at any one, never bared their teeth to a person or other animal. They really don't have a clue how to attack. It made no difference whether it was a $1200 Dane or $150 adopted one that I had no breeding information for. Three of my adopted ones had been severly abused :furious: and still they showed absolutely no aggression to people or the other Danes in my home. My conclusion is there are certain traits and characteristics inherent in every breed. Regardless of training, you can't train those out of a dog, maybe restrain the trait but it's always going to be in the dog.

:laugh: My neighbors were hysterical from laughter when I put "Beware of Dogs" sign on my fence. It was city ordinance if you owned a dog bigger than 40 lbs.

I really don't care what "experts" say. For every expert that has one view there's always another expert with an opposing view. JMO

 

[LinasK]

Pit bulls have been around for a long long time, why is it that they have come under fire in the last 20 years? What changed? The fact that you think that a pit bull bitting is a gauranteed thing shows your supreme lack of understanding of the issue.

No, I understand the issue completely!

if pit bulls make up 21% of the dogs on the list of killer dogs, not just the general dog population (labs and retrievers are not in that list), then it is out of proportion.is that a disproportionate number of people with bad intentions seek out the breed and then develop bad characteristics in individual pit bulls. It doesn't take many people doing this to skew the numbers.

Look at the breeds that have topped the lists. In the 1970s it was dobermans, in the 1980s it was pit bulls, in the 1990s it was Rottweilers. Now it is back to pit bulls. What do all of these dogs have in common, besides size and strength? They are all considered by many people to be guard and protect dogs. 40% of people who buy dogs list "for a guard dog" as one of their reasons for getting the dog. I would imagine that many of these people train their dogs to be "guard dogs". So now, if the dog is put in the position to do what it was purchased and trained for and it kills the intruder, the death of the intruder is logged as a "1" in the statistics above, and the breed responsible is only logged as having killed someone.

If your neighborhood is representative of every other neighborhood in the country, then the tallies that you provide would be accurate to broaden to the rest of the US. However, I am very confident that any 1 neighborhood can't be generalized to fit even a fraction of the neighborhoods in the country. I have been in many neighborhoods where the only dogs you see are pit bulls. I just called my friend (the one who's pit bull protected him from an attacking rohdesian ridgeback) who grew up in a neighborhood right outside of a large city. I asked him how many dogs in his neighborhood where pit bulls. His response, "AT LEAST 95% of them". I have seen estimates that put the number of pit bulls at 5 million nationwide.

Case proven! Pit Bulls are an unacceptable risk to society IMO! And no, I don't think drug dealers will decide to go get Presa Canarios to have around, but they sure won't be getting Golden Retrievers!!!

 

[Casshew]

but LinasK.. they're just so sweet and cuddily

 

[SadieMae]

Good Lord Cass!!!! :furious:

This should NEVER happen.

 

[IdahoMom]

Ahem- an update on the kids...

http://www.suntimes.com/output/news/cst-nws-pitbull10.html

SNIP
A McHenry County girl mauled by pit bulls continued her recovery Wednesday, while the 10-year-old boy attacked by the dogs remained in critical condition, hospital officials said.

Jourdan Lamarre, 10, was upgraded from fair to good condition, officials at Advocate Lutheran General Hospital said.

She was one of two children attacked last weekend by three pit bulls near northwest suburban Cary.

Her friend, 10-year-old Nick Foley, is still in critical condition, hospital officials said. Despite her continuing recovery, it's not clear when Jourdan may be released from the hospital, a spokeswoman there said.