| Home » |
 Dogs Bite Blog ::
browse:
animal groups,
comments and editorials,
criminal trials,
dogfighting,
dog law and bsl,
family dog attacks,
fatal dog attacks,
horse attacks,
pet attacks,
pit bull owners,
police shootings,
postal attacks,
senior attacks,
sticky stories,
victims of attacks
|
Sioux City Teenager Attacked by Pit Bull Stepping Off Bus
Attack Follows Discussion Delay
Sioux City, IA - Two events happened in Sioux City yesterday. First, it was announced that city council members pushed back discussion on a proposed pit bull ban. The next meeting is set for September 15th. The first two readings of the pit bull ban have been approved. The second event involved a pit bull attack. Police say a 17-year-old teenager who is developmentally disabled was attacked by two pit bulls while getting off a city bus.
Police say the teen sustained puncture wounds to his stomach area when the loose dogs attacked him. His grandfather took him to a hospital. The dogs were owned by two different people and both were issued citations. Alexious Simpson has been charged with allowing a dog to run at large and no city dog license. Karen Willoughby has been charged with no rabies tag, allowing a dog to run at large and no dog license.
Related articles:
08/27/08: Sioux City Irons Out Final Pit Bull Ordinance Issues
07/21/08: More Cities Contemplating Pit Bull LawsLabels: ADA, disabled
|
posted by bitbypit | permalink |
2 comments | email | start a discussion
|
|
|
Quadriplegic Woman Protects Service Dog from Attacking Pit Bulls
Pit Bull Owner Cites Clichés
UPDATE 08/28/08: The owner of the pit bulls, Joe Wheeler, wishes the attack had not happened. He said, "I want apologize to the lady and her service dog ... I feel terrible about the situation." He said that one of the dog's, Neeko, is an "escape artist." He also said that both of his dogs are "misunderstood." Both clichés are straight from the pit bull owner's Conduct Unbecoming Guide.
08/27/08: Pit Bulls Gang Up on Service Dog
Champlin, MN - In another attack involving a disabled person, a service dog, and a pit bull, two pit bulls jumped Tara Wirtjies' service dog. Tara tried to stop the dogs with her wheelchair. Tara is a quadriplegic. She said she thought the pit bulls might kill Rue, her golden retriever. Rue is a service dog, not a therapy dog. We hope the attack did not damage Rue's extensive training.
The video is very compelling. Tara was alongside her dog in a quiet neighborhood when the pit bulls charged out of a yard and lunged at Rue. "I just thought this is how she was going to die," she said. Tara started spinning her wheelchair to stop the attack. The pit bulls were called off by their owner but not before they broke open Rue's scar that was healing from a recent operation.
A neighbor, who did not want to identified, said the pit bulls had escaped twice before and attacked other dogs. That news outraged Tara. "He knew that these dogs were dangerous," she said. Fortunately, Rue is okay. Champlin Police seized the two pit bulls and they're being held at animal control until the investigation is over. The dogs' owner could face charges.
Related articles:
08/03/08: Pit Bull Attacks Columbus Man, 85, in Wheelchair
07/20/08: Woman Claims Monkey is 'Service Animal'
05/17/08: Pit Bull Attacks Seeing Guide Dog in SurreyLabels: ADA, disabled
|
|
posted by bitbypit | permalink |
8 comments | email | start a discussion
|
|
|
Comment: Pit Bull Therapy Dogs May Frighten Disabled People
DogsBite.org - It is our understanding that perhaps 2 weeks remain in the public's ability to comment directly to the Department of Justice about the revisions to the ADA's service and therapy animal guidelines. If you have not yet voiced your opinion, please do now. To reference the past blog post that talks about the proposed changes in detail, click here.
Post Comment to DOJ
Click the gold icon to leave a comment.Comment: "I would like to make one more point about the use of pit bulls as "therapy" dogs. My mother is disabled by Alzheimers, and I have spent a good deal of time in both assisted living facilities and LTC facilities, and have spoken to some of the folks who do pet therapy. One of the considerations you have when choosing a dog for this kind of work is that many residents will be afraid of the dog...especially if the dog is a large, menacing looking breed. The PRIMARY consideration for choosing a dog for therapy visits should be the comfort of the residents, NOT to make a political statement. Guarding and fighting breeds were created to look menacing, muscular, and imposing, not cuddly and cute. Many residents would be afraid of having a pit bull pay them a visit, and depending on the level of their disability, may not be in a position to express that fear. How terrible to have a sick and disabled elderly person, trapped in a situation where they may feel intimidated by an animal they are afraid of....all to accommodate the ego of some "rescue angel", who is not doing therapy work because she seeks to give back to the community, or bring joy to lonely residents, but because she wants to make a political statement about a breed of dog!
I think that sick, disabled residents like my mom would much rather a visit from the sweet faced Cavalier King Charles Spaniel, which can sit gently in her lap, or the lovely Standard poodle. I also believe that it is equally important that the handler is a mature, kind, compassionate person who loves the elderly and disabled; therapy work is not just something to put on your dogs resume, and I am VERY concerned that the pro-pit lobby would actually stoop low enough to get pit bulls certified for therapy PURELY as PR; the rescue angels will spend most of their visits to facilities "educating" residents about pit bulls instead of keeping them company." Post Comment to DOJ
Click the gold icon to leave a comment.
Related articles:
07/20/08: Service and Therapy Animals: Changes to the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)Labels: ADA, service animals
|
|
posted by bitbypit | permalink |
6 comments | email | start a discussion
|
|
|
Service and Therapy Animals: Changes to the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)
Title II: Section 35.136 Service Animals
DogsBite.org - The Department of Justice is currently revising the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Sections of the act that will be amended include service and therapy pets. Currently, there are no formal training standards to qualify an animal as a service or therapy pet. Many of the revisions the DOJ has made, however, are helpful, including the distinction that animals whose sole purpose is to provide "emotional support" are not service animals.
DogsBite.org is concerned about the growing effort of pit bull owners and other animal groups that advocate pit bulls as "excellent" service/therapy pets. We believe these groups may hoodwink disabled persons into believing that a pit bull is a safe dog. We are also concerned how the DOJ defines an "attack dog." In the Minimal Protection area the DOJ writes: "excluding from coverage so-called 'attack dogs.'" But what is an attack dog?
Does a dog have to attack once before it is labeled an attack dog? In many instances, a violent attack is a pit bull's first attack. Pit bulls were selectively bred to hide warning signals before an attack. The degree to which a person "does not know" whether or not a pit bull will attack is high enough to exclude the breed from all service animal work. Neither the community nor a disabled person can afford pit bulls being used in this area.
Back in January, two pet pit bulls attacked and killed one of their owners. The victim, Kelli Chapman was 24-years old. The family believes the dogs attacked her because she suffered a seizure while sleeping. The genetic traits of this dog do not make them a suitable service dog. The death of Kelly Chapman is a concrete example. Disabled individuals need dogs that can help them, not dogs that kill them while they are enduring a seizure.
Post Comment to DOJ
We highly urge you to post a comment directly to the Department of Justice about areas that concern you. To leave a comment, click the gold icon.
Definitions. Service animal means any dog or other common domestic animal individually trained to do work or perform tasks for the benefit of a qualified individual with a disability, including, but not limited to, guiding individuals who are blind or have low vision, alerting individuals who are deaf or hard of hearing to the presence of people or sounds, providing minimal protection or rescue work, pulling a wheelchair, fetching items, assisting an individual during a seizure, retrieving medicine or the telephone, providing physical support and assistance with balance and stability to individuals with mobility disabilities, and assisting individuals, including those with cognitive disabilities, with navigation. The term service animal includes individually trained animals that do work or perform tasks for the benefit of individuals with disabilities, including psychiatric, cognitive, and mental disabilities. The term service animal does not include wild animals (including nonhuman primates born in captivity), reptiles, rabbits, farm animals (including any breed of horse, miniature horse, pony, pig, or goat), ferrets, amphibians, and rodents. Animals whose sole function is to provide emotional support, comfort, therapy, companionship, therapeutic benefits, or to promote emotional well-being are not service animals.
Service animals. The Department wishes to clarify the obligations of public entities to accommodate individuals with disabilities who use service animals. The Department continues to receive a large number of complaints from individuals with service animals. It appears, therefore, that many covered entities are confused about their obligations under the ADA in this area. At the same time, some individuals with impairments -- who would not be covered as qualified individuals with disabilities -- are claiming that their animals are legitimate service animals, whether fraudulently or sincerely (albeit mistakenly), to gain access to the facilities of public entities. Another trend is the use of wild or exotic animals, many of which are untrained, as service animals. In order to clarify its position and avoid further misapplication of the ADA, the Department is proposing amendments to its regulation with regard to service animals.
Minimal protection. In the Department's ADA Business Brief on Service Animals, which was published in 2002, the Department interpreted the minimal protection language in its definition of service animals within the context of a seizure (i.e., alerting and protecting a person who is having a seizure). Although the Department received comments urging it to eliminate the phrase "providing minimal protection'' from its regulation, the Department continues to believe that the language serves the important function of excluding from coverage so-called "attack dogs'' that pose a direct threat to others.
Guidance on permissible service animals. The existing regulation implementing title III defines a "service animal'' as "any guide dog, signal dog, or other animal.'' At the time the regulation was promulgated, the Department believed that leaving the species selection up to the discretion of the individual with a disability was the best course of action. Due to the proliferation of animal types that have been used as "service animals,'' including wild animals, the Department believes that this area needs established parameters. Therefore, the Department is proposing to eliminate certain species from coverage under the ADA even if the other elements of the definition are satisfied.
Comfort animals vs. psychiatric service animals. Under the Department's present regulatory language, some individuals and entities have assumed that the requirement that service animals must be individually trained to do work or carry out tasks excluded all persons with mental disabilities from having service animals. Others have assumed that any person with a psychiatric condition whose pet provided comfort to him or her was covered by the ADA. The Department believes that psychiatric service animals that are trained to do work or perform a task (e.g., reminding its owner to take medicine) for persons whose disability is covered by the ADA are protected by the Department's present regulatory approach.
Proposed training standards. The Department has always required that service animals be individually trained to do work or perform tasks for the benefit of an individual with a disability, but has never imposed any type of formal training requirements or certification process. While some advocacy groups have urged the Department to modify its position, the Department does not believe that such a modification would serve the array of individuals with disabilities who use service animals.
Post Comment to DOJ
We highly urge you to post a comment directly to the Department of Justice about areas that concern you. To leave a comment, click the gold icon.
Related articles:
July 15th Public Hearing Meeting Regarding Proposed ADA Changes
DOJ Website With Latest RevisionsLabels: ADA, service animals
|
|
posted by bitbypit | permalink |
2 comments | email | start a discussion
|
|
|
CHAKO vs. The City and County of San Francisco
Pit Bull Sterilization Law Victorious
San Francisco, CA - On June 3rd, 2008 the San Francisco Office of the City Attorney released a statement regarding the CHAKO case -- a pit bull advocacy group that sued San Francisco over its mandatory pit bull sterilization law. CHAKO challenged the validity of the ordinance, alleging that it violated numerous federal and state constitutional provisions, including the right to happiness.
US District Judge Maxine M. Chesney granted the City's motion to dismiss all claims with the exception of the federal Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) claim. Both parties have since settled the remaining claim, which resulted in dismissal of the lawsuit. Under the terms of the settlement, the City agreed not to enforce the sterilization ordinance against any person with a mobility-related disability who: (i) owned an unsterilized pit bull service dog at the time the ordinance was enacted; (ii) uses that unsterilized pit bull service dog to accommodate his/her mobility-related disability; and (iii) had registered his/her unsterilized pit bull service dog with the San Francisco Department of Animal Care and Control by the time the ordinance was enacted. Any person who does not fall within this specific category remains subject to the ordinance. City Attorney Dennis Herrera stated that although he continues to believe the ordinance is fully valid, the settlement is in San Francisco's best interest. "There is nothing about this ordinance that interferes with the ability of any disabled person to obtain assistance from service animals, and therefore it is fully consistent with the ADA," Herrera said.
CHAKO fits the bill of an egregious pit bull lobbying group. They stop at nothing when it comes to challenging the regulation of their breed, including misusing the rights of people with disabilities to prop up their goals. One can hardly stoop much further than this.
Related articles:
02/26/08: United States Supreme Court Leaves Intact Ohio Supreme Court’s Ruling that Breed-Specific Legislation is ConstitutionalLabels: ADA, Constitutional, service animals
|
|
posted by bitbypit | permalink |
3 comments | email | start a discussion
|
|
|
|
|
|
| recent posts |
|
 |
|
|
| join the list |
|
 |
|
|
|
