Thursday, June 04, 2009

Yet Another Pit Bull Attack

We've got a problem here in Indianapolis. There are too many people living on the fringes of society in this city who get a kick out of breeding and training pit bulls to be human killing machines. Three pit bulls violently attacked a woman living on the city's south side today in her own yard. It looks like the home where the dogs were being kept had no human occupants. Go figure. WTHR's Steve Jefferson reports:

A south side Indianapolis woman is recovering after three pit bulls attacked her in her own yard.

"We are being attacked by pit bulls! We need the cops here." That was the 911 call that came in Wednesday about a vicious dog attack on a 30-year-old south side Indianapolis woman.

As Heather Paugh walked to her mailbox on South State Avenue Wednesday, three pit bulls suddenly attacked.

"She had a severe chunk taken out of her left forearm all the way down to the bone. She had multiple punctures to both legs," said Jerry Bippus, Animal Care and Control.

To ward off the dogs, the victim's friend released their Rotweiler into the yard. That gave Paugh the chance to escape with her life. The Rotweiler did not survive.

When police showed up, "the dogs would not let the victim come out the house or let the police onto the property. Police had to shoot two of them. The other took off running," said Bippus.

Animal Control officers not only showed us how the dogs got to the victim under the fence, but also how they got in and out on the other side of the house. Officers believe the dogs went in and out of a window they found open at a house next door to Paugh's.

Inside were even more dogs in unfit living conditions, according to police.

"There were feces all through the house," said Bippus.

Animal Control removed three other pit bulls from the house, which are now in custody.

City County Councilman Mike Speedy hopes to revive his proposed at-risk dog legislation, which was tabled last month.

"It would limit the number of pit bulls households could have to two and it would also require registration and mandatory spade and neuter of pit bulls," Speedy said.

Just like Councilman Speedy, Animal Control believes owners are the problem, not the dogs.

Heather Paugh says she is recovering, but the attack has devastated her entire family.

Animal Control has identified the owner of the pit bulls who they say will face citations and most likely criminal charges.
Councilor Mike Speedy knows what he's talking about. We've got to do something to address this problem. I've had to come face to face with a problem pit bull owner in my own downtown neighborhood. There is no doubt in my mind that the dog's owner is training this dog to be a fighter. I've never seen a dog behave so aggressively at such a young age as this dog. I've been around well-raised pit bulls and they can be wonderful dogs. Unfortunately, this is the breed of choice for the underbelly of society. And these dogs are increasingly posing a risk to the safety and well-being of our public safety officers as they attempt to go about their jobs.

14 comments:

Rob K said...

This is one of the best reasons in my mind to carry a pistol.

Downtown Indy said...

While cycling near Raymond and State last year, I witnessed a chained pit bull (or similar-looking) dog being slapped, smacked and yelled at by a guy whom I assumed was the owner. This was right in the front yard and was not 'play' or 'discipline.' He was clearly training the dog to be agressive.

There are many, many homes in that area where I find highly-agitated large dogs whenever I pass through. Fortunately, I haven't come across one that was loose. Yet.

Sir Hailstone said...

Use a pistol against the dog or its owner?

I'd say owner. The dog did what it was trained to do, in spite of the owner being a worthless piece of s**t.

Scotty Leisure said...

What a joke. This owner should face jail time of at least a year. The breed should be banned in Marion and the donut counties.

PetsRTrue-PetsRFun said...

We bred dogs for a hunting instinct and we don't deny that. We bred dogs for a herding instinct and a guarding instinct and we don't deny that breeding. Pit/bullies were bred to be vicious to other animals. Many humans receive a pit attack trying to save their own pets from the pit. Why are we denying that we bred this instinct into them? They have an instinct that can't be overcome no matter how they are raised. You raise a child, you train a dog. Dogs don't have morals and ethics, these are concepts and dogs are incapable of concepts. The only way to train the vicious instinct is to solicit it into the open. No one does this, so when the time comes and the dog snaps, they have received no training for this behavior and they follow their instinct. Prevent the Deed, Regulate the Breed. If you abide by punish the deed, then that is the same as saying let the attacks continue. Prevention makes much more sense.

bitbypit said...

Thank you Advance Indiana! From all of us at DogsBite.org!

Readers can find our blog posts about the Indianapolis pit bull situation and Councillor Mike Speedy's proposal at the following URL:

Coverage of Indianapolis Serious Pit Bull Attacks and Controversy:

http://www.dogsbite.org/blog/2009/03/coverage-of-indianapolis-serious-pit.html

Vox Populi said...

I'm shocked by the alleged freedom lovers on here who support banning a breed of dog. Thousands of us who are responsible Pit owners shouldn't be punished because of a few people who brutalize their animals.

The dogs trained to fight need to be euthanized, and so do their owners.

Downtown Indy said...

Vox, the city bans farm animals within the city limite, 'punishing' thousands who may well keep a clean, sanitary environment for such animals on their property.

No one has come up with a way, that I am aware of, to discern the playful, friendly, lovable pit bull from the one that will rip your face off (literally, in at least once well-publicized case) without warning or provocation.

People are often fond of saying 'if it saves just one life' in whatever cause they are supporting. I think it's a reasonable thing to ban all pit bulls if it saves just one life - or prevents one disfiguring, debilitating mauling.

Mike Kole said...

This is what government intervention always comes down to: sacrificing the interests of the well-behaved many because of the ill-behaved few.

Don't ban the breed. Jail the owners of dogs that attack.

Lord Peter said...

Ban the breed.

The AKC's (and other's) talking points against "breed-specific legislation" have done *nothing* to prevent thousands of pitbull attacks across the US, and hundreds in Indiana. Notwithstanding Indianapolis's non-breed specific "Dangerous Dogs" ordinance, there were 240 pitbull attack in Indy just last year.

And even if this means that there are 240 owners we need to crack down on (and I assume it does), the fact remains that if these owners were not raising pit bulls, the attacks would have been much less serious.

So ban the breed already.

Michael said...

Is Genocide Right?

Dictionary.com defines Genocide are: "the deliberate and systematic extermination of a national, racial, political, or cultural group."

In today's news, WTHR.com reported that City County Councilor Mike Speedy is going to reintroduce the "Dangerous Dog Ordinance." Councilor Speedy today told WTHR ""It would limit the number of pit bulls households could have to two and it would also require registration and mandatory spade and neuter of pit bulls," Speedy said."

I have no problem with a Ordinance limiting the number of Dogs one can have, or that those Dogs should be registered. In fact I think it is in the best interest of Citizens of Marion County City of Indianapolis to go a step farther and instead of just limiting Dogs, but also Cats. I have a major problem with a mandatory spade and neuter. By making this mandatory Councilor Speedy is supporting Genocide towards pit bulls. Animal Care and Control agree with Councilor Speedy that the animals are not the root of the problem the owners are. Then why does Councilor Speedy support the Genocide of the Pit Bulls? Why isn't Councilor Speedy pushing for harder fines, and more legal action such as punishment that could be used against the Owners instead of the killing off of a breed in Marion County? Why isn't Councilor Speedy pushing for State Legislation which would make owning a Dangerous Dog a Crime, and punishable by incarceration? Why is it just breed-specific?

Dogs make great pets, but any dog can become Dangerous.

In a journal published by Applied Animal Behavior Science it was found that the Dachshund followed by the Chihuahua, and then the Jack Russell Terrier were more likely to bite. The study also found that Pit Bulls scored average to below average in showing hostility towards strangers. Why is it embedded into people's thought patterns that the Pit Bull is so dangerous, and yet these smaller breeds are more likely to bite making them more dangerous?

So why doesn't the Dangerous Dog Ordinance target the Chihuahua, or the Dachshund? Why does it target Pit Bulls? Punish the Owners not the Animals.

Councilor Speedy please tell me that you do not buy into the hype of what is reported is more important then fact.

Downtown Indy said...

The main reason 'pit bulls' are the target is, unlike chihuahuas, this is a large and powerful breed which when 'on' a victim is virtually impossible to stop.

Fists, rocks, even clubs have almost no effect when a pit bull is attacking. Putting the owner in jail after a victim is left with flesh hanging from their limbs or face is not going to heal those wounds. The threat of jail isn't going to deter ownership before the fact, either.

Vox Populi said...

Ban pitbulls, and the people who are breaking the law by using them as fighting dogs will probably do it anyway (this is the conservative argument against banning handguns--the criminals will always have them).

The smart criminals will just switch to using Rottweilers and Dobermans again.

Michael said...

Downtown Indy,
So under your thought pattern that having a breed-specific ban is ok if it just saves one life.

Then wouldn't the same hold true to that if we ban one religion and it saves one life it would be worth it as well?

If I remember correctly someone else thought banning a religion was also fine.

Why not target all Pet Owners? Why is it just Pit Bulls?

I have no problem if the proposed ordinance would include all breeds, however it doesn't.

Would you not agree that any animal can be dangerous and therefore "to save just one life" all animals should be targeted?

What will the next ban on just one group include? Banning of a Race?

The Owners and those using poor breeding stock are the Problem not the Animals.