Home  ·   News  ·   Weather  ·   Sports  ·   Jobs  ·   Community  ·   Pics N Videos  ·   Station  ·   Marketplace  ·   6 on Your Side  ·   Contests  ·   Get Connected  ·   Blogs
Health Check · Lottery · DTV · Seasonal · Mom to Mom · Traffic · The Omaha Buzz · CityCAMS · My Weather · School Closings · HS Cribs · Restaurants · McKnight Investigates
WOWT.com on Demand
6 On Your Cell
News, Sports & Weather
Information On Your Cell
Text ALERTS
Breaking News Alerts
Direct to Your Cell Phone
Daily e-News
News & Weather Updates
delivered via email
You Cast
Submit Your Pics
and Video
What's on 6
Your Guide to NBC
& WOWT Programming
Elderly Woman Attacked By Pit Bull Save Email Print
"Why don’t they do something?"
Posted: 4:51 PM Jul 9, 2008
 Last Updated: 10:04 PM Jul 9, 2008
 Email Address: sixonline@wowt.com
156 comments
A | A | A

An elderly Omaha woman wants something done about pit bulls after she and her dog were attacked, leaving her on crutches and her pet in stitches.

Eighty-year-old Dorothy Lanoha is angry. "I think they should take the dog and put it to sleep.” She’s also afraid. "I don’t wanna go outside in my front yard, it’s just traumatized me." And she wants some answers. "Why don’t they do something? I find out now there’s another one, two doors up from me."

Dorothy’s dog Shadow and her neighbor’s dog were attacked by a pit bull last week while Dorothy and her friend were out walking their dogs near South 53rd and N streets.

"He drops her dog and comes after mine and three times, he dropped my dog twice and got him three times and bit him. By then we're all screaming and the neighbors, there's like 50 people out and they all come running to help."

Shadow suffered multiple wounds. He's been to the vet and it will take time and money for Shadow to recover. Dorothy is also hurting. Her hip, her ankle and her back were injured during the attack. Dorothy says the pit bull that attacked her and Shadow is still at home with its owners.

Dorothy said it was a horrible moment and many things were going through her mind. "You know what I really was thinking? I was thinking about that little girl that they ripped the back of her head off. I just feel for that little girl, that mother, what she must have went through."

City officials called Dorothy Wednesday afternoon and say they are still gathering information and there is a meeting scheduled next week to discuss a possible pit bull ban.
More Stories
Pre-teen Burglars ?

Attempted Armed Robbery

Lawsuit Filed Over Teddy Bear Spying

Man Eligible for Parole after 1-year on his tenth D.W.I. Conviction

 Pension Spiking Revealed Again

Hearing Held In Attempted Murder Case

Parking Rage Incident

Flag Theft Arrest
Post Your Comments
First Name:
Location:
Enter Comments: characters left
Email (optional):
Email will not be displayed on site. For station contact purpose only.
Read Comments
Comments are posted from viewers like you and do not always reflect the views of this station.
Posted by: Tones on Jul 24, 2008 at 08:07 AM
I will pray for Miklaha's 4 year old sister.
Posted by: Miklaha on Jul 23, 2008 at 05:25 PM
its really the owners fault i have a pitbull and she is loveable and my lil sis who is 4 has even bit her and she did nothing
Posted by: Wondering on Jul 15, 2008 at 06:26 PM
Dear Concerned Citizen, Please name some cities that have had their bans overturned. I searched on Google for Pit Bull Ban Overturned and only came up with stories about pit people wanting to overturn bans, but none that have actually been overturned on constitutional grounds. A specific example would help.
Posted by: Tones on Jul 15, 2008 at 02:34 PM
Concerned...Your posts are bordering on fanatical. Sure poorly written laws can get overturned via sypathetic judges -- but not every pit-bull ban has been overturned -- there are many well written ordinances in place. A well written Pit Bull ban in Omaha is not going to take away the right to own pets as your latest diatribes suggest. A ban in place would make it easier to get pits owned by the criminal element out of the community-- you can[t just tuck a big dog like this away like a gun. They would be very easy to spot with a ban in place, and less innocents would be attacked as well. A pit bull ban like Council Bluffs has would be a great victory for peace loving people of Omaha. My advice for you is to take your meds and lay off the conspiracy theories.
Posted by: concerned citizen on Jul 14, 2008 at 02:50 PM
And a lovely comment from the head of HSUS: "One generation and out. We have no problem with the extinction of domestic animals. They are creations of human selective breeding." Wayne Pacelle, Humane Society of the US, formerly of Friends of Animals and Fund for Animals, Animal People, May, 1993 and another for good measure: When asked if he envisioned a future without pets, “If I had my personal view, perhaps that might take hold. In fact, I don’t want to see another dog or cat born.” Wayne Pacelle quoted in Bloodties: Nature, Culture and the Hunt by Ted Kerasote, 1993, p. 266. Ingrid again:"[A]s the surplus of cats and dogs {artificially engineered by centuries of forced breeding) declined, eventually companion animals would be phased out, and we would return to a more symbiotic relationship--enjoyment at a distance." Ingrid Newkirk, "Just Like Us? Toward a Notion of Animal Rights", Harper's, August 1988 Remember that when you are lobbying for the taking of your rights (or donating)
Posted by: concerned citizen on Jul 14, 2008 at 02:46 PM
Oh and by the way, for those you that don't know, PETA and the HSUS love these types of laws as they create a precedent that government can tell you what you can do with your property. The end goal of both of these groups is that no one should own a pet. Don't believe me? Here is the proof in their own words: "You don't have to own squirrels and starlings to get enjoyment from them ... One day, we would like an end to pet shops and the breeding of animals. [Dogs] would pursue their natural lives in the wild ... they would have full lives, not wasting at home for someone to come home in the evening and pet them and then sit there and watch TV," Ingrid Newkirk, national director, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PeTA), Chicago Daily Herald, March 1, 1990.
Posted by: concerned citizen on Jul 14, 2008 at 02:39 PM
Davis, I understand what I read very well thank you and as I mentioned before, they use them here in the States because the penalty for mauling or killing a rival is not even close the penalty they would get for using a gun, knife or even their fist. The pitbull problem is the CRIMINAL element that owns them, breeds bad temperament to bad temperament and trains them to fight. There are, however, other owners who are responsible and their pitbull is a loving member of their family. I know one lady who has a pitbull that is her hearing assistance dog. A breed ban penalizes someone more than it does the criminal element because THE CRIMINAL ELEMENT DOESN'T FOLLOW THE LAW. Do you seriously expect the gangbanger who owns the pitbull he trained to fight to just mosey on down to animal control and turn it in if a breed ban is passed? No, it is the lady with the property registered well trained assistance dog that will be penalized. Boy that worked well, didn't it?
Posted by: concerned citizen on Jul 14, 2008 at 02:31 PM
Tones, as it seems so obvious you don't understand how the Constitution relates to the making of laws I'll just leave it at that. Breed bans have been overturned in other jurisdictions based on that very same amendments....at great cost to the city, I might add...
Posted by: John on Jul 14, 2008 at 06:15 AM
Concerned citizen, the mirror? You list a tabloid as your reference? I know pit bull advocates like to use revisionist history and creative journalism to support their cases. I can tell you from first hand experience that a pit bull bite is not a normal dog bite. Most dogbites leave a bruise and/or small puncture wounds. A pit bull bite rips flesh from bone. What'smore there is a profound difference between a pit bull attack frenzy and dog aggression that one might experience from other dog breeds. True enough any breed may be inclined to attempt to establish it's territory or display dominance. The pit bull however is inclined sustain an attack to the death.
Posted by: Davis on Jul 14, 2008 at 03:15 AM
Concerned Citizen, I read the story you linked from the U.K. - The point of the story was that the criminal element are using dogs as weapons after a crack-down on guns and knives. It mentions a pit bull ban at the very end, but as the point of the story was not the failure of banning pits, I must question whether or not you can actually comprehend what you read. Pit Bull bans work.... just ask Council Bluffs!!
Posted by: Tones on Jul 14, 2008 at 03:07 AM
Concerned.... Thank you for reciting the 14th amendment for everybody. It didn't do anything to make your point, but thank you anyway. You see, that amendment is about enforcement of laws throught the court system - not about whether or not a law can be created to ban a dangerous breed of dog. If you were going to use an interpretation that would protect owners of pitbulls from a ban; then the second part about equal protection could be applied to the general public in regards to be protected against the threat of pit bull attacks. Both applications are ridiculous in the context of a pit bull ban --so you've accomplished nothing.
Posted by: Jeff on Jul 14, 2008 at 01:25 AM
Anonymous@9:28, I looked no further than the first page to pick up on the deceptive wording and see the inconsistent statistics. You feel the sight is pretty accurate; what are you comparing it to? I found inconsistencies comparing statistics on the same page of the site. That's inexcusable; I can't take the site seriously.
Posted by: Patrick on Jul 13, 2008 at 10:51 PM
Pete, I’m sorry. From recent posts, I see I should have said “approximately 60% of pit owners are criminals.” It’s not a theory; the data exists. I took that statistic from a national safety journal, but can’t find it online right now, and this story’s almost off the queue. Here’s a link to data of an Ohio study (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1741399/posts). Of note, 100% of the pit bull owners had a brush with the law. 30% of aggressive breed owners had been cited for not registering their dog and had five or more brushes with the law. Now, check their definition of a “vicious dog”. You won’t like it, but the definition’s used in local ordinances. The scariest statistic: “Owners of vicious dogs who have been cited for failing to register a dog or failing to keep a dog confined on the premises ... are MORE THAN NINE TIMES MORE LIKELY TO HAVE BEEN CONVICTED FOR A CRIME INVOLVING CHILDREN.” Heck with keeping your kids away from the dog. Tell them to stay away from the owners!
Posted by: Anonymous on Jul 13, 2008 at 09:28 PM
Jeff, though it really is not germane to the argument (as there will obviously be a greater number of dog attacks when the number of irresponsible owners of a certain breed makes up a larger than average percentage of owners as is the current case with the Pitbull), which page on that site are you referring to? Most of the information I found on that site was pretty accurate.
Posted by: Jeff on Jul 13, 2008 at 07:27 PM
alicia, the web site you cite is interesting, but if you can't recognize the bias, you're blind. They cite their own supporting figures as "approximate", while they blast their opponents' figures for not being exactly "accurate." That's just deceptive word play, when we all know national dog populations can only be estimated. However, you would expect an accurate count of dog bite fatalities, right? Your site gives a number 1.5 times what the CDC reports as the annual average of dog bite fatalities. Being off by 50% hardly qualifies as approximate; it isn't even close! What's worse, your site quotes the CDC figure later on the same page! This "National Canine Research Council" is obviously highly biased, and apparently they lack the ability (or integrity) to check their own figures. Why should we trust their criticism of others' figures? Why should we trust ANYTHING the site says?
Posted by: concerned citizen on Jul 13, 2008 at 06:29 PM
Anonymous, fines and jail time are not meted out for the benefit of the victim; they are there to punish the perpetrator. Perhaps some of you should start thinking with your head instead of the knee-jerk push towards a solution that doesn't work. Denver now has more pitbulls than it did before. The UK WHICH HAS BANNED THIS BREED SINCE 1991 has seen an increase during that time of 37.5% of dog attacks serious enough to warrant a visit to the hospital. Don't believe me? Here's the source: http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/topstories/2007/12/31/dog-attacks-on-increase-89520-20270511/ Breed bans have not worked in almost every city they've been implemented in. Is Omaha suddenly going to become the antithesis? I hardly think so. Find a solution that works.
Posted by: concerned citizen on Jul 13, 2008 at 06:17 PM
Tones, I do not own a Pitbull. I own 4 Cavalier King Charles Spaniels. Do you usually laugh at the Constitution? Perhaps you should familiarize yourself with the 14th Amendment: “No State shall…deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” If you've got a vicious pitbull, german shepherd, akita, cocker spaniel, dachshund next door, REPORT IT! Most of these attacks wouldn't have happened if the people who were aware of the presence of an unstable dog had done so and a lot of these irresponsible owners might get rid of some of the unstable members of the breed if they knew they would be charged with destruction of property if their dog mauls someones pet or manslaughter if it kills someone. As an added benefit, it does not violate the Constitutional rights of the responsible owner.
Posted by: Tones on Jul 13, 2008 at 05:13 PM
I laugh at the notion that a pit breed ban is unconstitutional. Sometimes the adults have to take away dangerous things from the children. Pitbull owners are the children here-the fact that you have to coddle and separate this breed from your neighbors to try to avoid the inevitable PIT BULL ATTACK FRENZY is justification enough for a ban.
Posted by: Anonymous on Jul 13, 2008 at 01:09 PM
What good does fines or jail time for negligent dog owners do for the victims of dog attacks. Once your crippled your crippled. No amount of compensation can make up for it. As if the victims of such attacks could really expect for as much as help with their medical bills. Alicia, I'm sorry but the web-sites your mention in your post offer no credible sources for their misinformation. I would suggest more cross reference in your research, and less inclination to believe the first thing your read.
Posted by: concerned citizen on Jul 13, 2008 at 11:38 AM
The last fatal Pit Bull attack in Denver occurred in 1986. Denver instituted a ban on Pit Bulls in 1989. Mr. Nelson, unversed in the patterns, frequency and circumstances of fatal dog attacks, draws a conclusion about the effects of the ban and the incidence of fatal dog (Pit bull) attacks with no evidence to support this claim. Portland, Oregon, a city with approx. the same population as Denver, also reported a fatal Pit Bull attack in 1986. Portland, Oregon did not institute a ban on Pit Bulls after this incident, yet they have not had another incidence of a fatal Pit bull attack since 1986. City/State Population (US Census) Last Fatal Pit Bull Attack Ban on Pit Bulls Denver, CO 554,636 1986 YES Portland, OR 529,121 1986 NO Fact: A city without breed specific legislation (Portland) has had NO fatal dog attacks after 1986. Fact: A city with breed specific legislation (Denver) has had a fatal dog attack (non-Pit bull) after 1986.
Posted by: concerned citizen on Jul 13, 2008 at 11:36 AM
To those of you commenting on Denver's breed ban: We've experienced a continuing upward trend of pit bulls impounded since 2001. The ban hasn't ended the popularity of the pit bull breed in Denver. There are still pit bulls, apparently more every year. Doug Kelley, Director of Animal Control - Denver, Colorado If you ban pit bulls, I promise another breed will come along as the breed of choice. Dr. Todd Towell, President of the Colorado Veterinarian and Medical Association, addressing the Senate's Local Government Committee, January 25, 2006.
Posted by: concerned citizen on Jul 13, 2008 at 11:19 AM
To all of the people commenting to Chelsy, you're off your rocker more than she is. It's not difficult to read "dog language" if you know what you're looking for. Here's a starter course. If your dog is bowing, ie. head and front paws down on the ground with its hind end in the air it wants to play. If a dog that normally wags its tail level with its back has its tail straight up, it's about to get aggressive. If a dog is staring at you and not moving, it doesn't think your new jeans are the snazziest thing its ever seen. Here's a little hint: it probably wouldn't be a good idea to stare right back at it if you don't want to get attacked.
Posted by: concerned citizen on Jul 13, 2008 at 10:49 AM
Part 3) If you want a better solution to the problem make the penalty appropriate to the transgression. If someone injures someone using a gun, a lead pipe or their fist, etc., they are thrown in jail. Using a pitbull to do the same is no different. Make the punishment fit the crime. It makes more sense than enacting an Unconstitutional breed ban that punishes the innocent (people who bought responsibly bred pitbulls and trained them appropriately) and never affects the guilty .
Posted by: concerned citizen on Jul 13, 2008 at 10:31 AM
(Part 1) I don't own a Pit and have never owned a Pit. However, I'm commenting on this story as breed bans NEVER work. Most cities that enact them repeal them later after finding out they don't work. The entire country of the UK put one of these bans in place in 1991 and found the number of serious dog bites actually INCREASED....by 40%. Why? The people responsible for these dogs that attack are either criminals or irresponsible owners neither of which follow the law. Do you really expect that gangbanger to turn in his pitbull if a breed ban passes and do you really expect that highly paid animal control officer to go collect the dog from this criminal? Meanwhile, the responsible owner who did everything right....got the dog from a responsible breeder breeding for temperament, trained and socialized the dog, etc. is being forced to give up the dog (and they do follow the law so bye, bye doggie). Their children are heartbroken. Their rights have been violated due to the thug.
Posted by: Pit owner on Jul 13, 2008 at 10:09 AM
I love how you say your dog was viciously attacked, when on the news they showed one wound. As a matter of fact I believe it was receintly released that dachsunds were the most vicious dog. So who's to say the dachsund didn't instigate the confrontation.
Posted by: useta own a pit on Jul 12, 2008 at 10:09 PM
How about this: anybody that hurts somebody else, or facilitates the injury of someone else (crazy dog, firearm, driving drunk), should be held responsible and actually be punished? Crazy thought, I know. I owned a pit, loved him absolutely to death, but don't believe for a second that I should not have been held responsible if he'd attacked anybody or another animal. It's simply another case of we already have all the laws we need, we just need decent judges to uphold them and see that offenders get punished.
Posted by: Pete on Jul 12, 2008 at 03:18 PM
First off, Patrick, your 60% of pit owners have criminal records theory is ridiculous. You wouldn't know those statistics, because they do not exist. Doesn't do you any good to make up something like that up just for "shock" value. To Chris, actually sir, I was robbed twice BEFORE I had my pits. Since, I haven't had so much as a trespasser. Although my dogs would never bite a person, they have been GREAT detourants of crime for me AND my neighbors. Feel free to knock on doors in my neighborhood and see if anyone feels threatened by my dogs. Like I said before, people in this city are becoming a little self serving and tight around the collar if you ask me. It is DEFINITELY not the same great city that I grew up in. Instead of continuously trying to alter the private lives of citizens, how about we start paying attention to things that affect us ALL, instead of things that just affect YOU. This isn't YOUR city, it is OURS. I feel that irresponsible owners should face jail time,not fines.
Posted by: alicia on Jul 12, 2008 at 02:07 PM
http://www.nationalcanineresearchcouncil.com/politicsandpitbulls.asp some good a ban would do.......
Posted by: Anonymous on Jul 12, 2008 at 01:58 PM
If these dogs are half as smart as their owners claim they are, then they would maul their owners instead.
Posted by: Anonymous on Jul 12, 2008 at 01:07 PM
Why stop at banning the pitbull. Lets ban their irresponsible owners too. To mich who rescued the pitbull that was a lovely story. But it does't sway me on the fact that these dogs are safe. The fact that you had a dark mass (probably a hematoma or bruise) which means blood under the skin. The dog smells blood and begins tasting your leg. Yeah sorry, I'm not sold
Posted by: Cornell Booth on Jul 12, 2008 at 11:45 AM
WHO EVER SOLVE THIS PROBLEM DESERVES A NOBEL PEACE PRIZE
Posted by: Anonymous on Jul 12, 2008 at 04:50 AM
So what Pete and Angel wings are saying is that they own pit bulls that are untrained, unsocialized, unexercised, and any one unfortunate enough to wander on to Pete's or Angel's property are fair game for their pit bulls. And they don't understand why anyone has a problem with that attitude. To David, thanks for the dogsbite.org info. The information on dogsbite is just the tip of the iceberg. If you look at msnbc closely there's pit bull attacks in the U.S. almost every day. There should be a nation wide ban on pit bulls.
Posted by: Grant on Jul 11, 2008 at 10:53 PM
Maybe if a pitt bull attacks the mayor or a city council member something will get done. Or a member of one of their families. That's what it will take to ban this breed. Stupid people with stupid dogs.
Posted by: Tones on Jul 11, 2008 at 04:30 PM
Fines won't work - you can't squeeze water from a stone. The failure of leash laws is not justification for not having a ban on pits. Pit bull owners will just have to find a different breed of scary dog, there are plenty out there. The other breeds (Chows,Rots,Boxers,sheperds....etc) arent' as dangerous as pitbulls, so pit bull owners don't get the "high" of feeling superior through intimidation of their neighbors that pit bulls give them. These are people on the lower end of the social spectrum who don't have much power in their lives and feel the need to gain that through owning a dog that is capable of destroying their neighbors children.
Posted by: Patrick on Jul 11, 2008 at 03:35 PM
Pat in StL, just a minor correction: respect for the law is a bigger problem than enforcement of the law. Over 60% of the pit bulls in Omaha are owned by people with criminal records. The dogs are a gem to be flaunted. (Have you ever known a pit bull or rottweiler named "Fluffy"? It goes against the culture ;) Maybe we could just ban criminals from owning pit bulls. Either way, I'd want each dog to pass a temperament test before allowing it to stay with its owner.
Posted by: Chris on Jul 11, 2008 at 03:18 PM
Pete, you've had a lot of bad luck being robbed. Sounds like your pit bulls were worthless in those situations. Also, yes, we do have the right to tell you that you can't use whatever animal you choose to protect your home. You can't use a lion, or a tiger, or a bear. Those are undomesticated animals, just like pit bulls. They might act friendly, but they can attack at any time. What we have now is an epidemic of pit bull owners in denial.
Posted by: Anonymous on Jul 11, 2008 at 02:59 PM
If pit bulls are banned, why not german shepherds and rottweilers as well? Oh wait, I know. Because no one sees any stories about them attacking people!!
Posted by: To Jaimie in South O on Jul 11, 2008 at 02:47 PM
So you don't even need to leash your perfectly behaved pitbulls huh? Wonderful, good to know you are so cautious. Guess who's dogs we'll be reading about attacking someone next? How you've raised these pits plays only a portion of how they will act. You do NOT know this for sure and cannot guarantee their behavior no matter how sure you are. They are a killer breed. Don't be so foolish.
Posted by: mich on Jul 11, 2008 at 01:53 PM
I just wanted everybody to know my story. I rescued a pibull who had her ears cut off without sedation, she deaf from ear trauma, very underweight and sick.I have always been scared of pits but she won my heart. She is friendly to everybody she meets.I started having severe ankle pain with a fever.She would not leave me alone, she kept pulling at my pant leg, crying and licking the ankle.The MD looked at my ankle and said it was fine, but she would not leave me alone for a week, she was my shadow.Finally I went back to the MD to look at my ankle again, and was even joking about my dog.He came back in the room showed me the xray,it had a large dark mass in the bone. I am scheduled for surgery tommorrow.If she wasnt bothering me so much I may not have had it looked at again, thank god she did or I could have gotten very sick.She very well may have saved my leg. Not ALL pits are bad.
Posted by: Charlie on Jul 11, 2008 at 01:21 PM
TO JAIMIE! You are apparently not a very good pit-bull or any other type of dog owner. Don't you know that it is illegal to not have your dog on a leash if they are outside. You are just a hypocrit that thinks you are above the law.
Posted by: J on Jul 11, 2008 at 12:43 PM
@Jaimie, South Omaha: Nebraska law says dogs have to be on a leash when off your property, so do be sure to leash them. Show others that you are a good owner of a good pet by doing so. @Angel Wings: Glad you found the ordinance about licensing a dangerous animal, but if a dog is declared "dangerous", why in the world would the Humane Society or the Courts allow you to keep it to allow future licensing? Dangerous means it HAS snapped, bitten, or shown a disposition to do so. In addition, wouldn't good sense mean that YOU wouldn't want to keep a dog that wants to harm innocents? A dog that bites a burglar (not an innocent) is one thing; one that bites the neighbor's dog - or the neighbor - is another, a "dangerous animal".
Posted by: B on Jul 11, 2008 at 11:35 AM
NEVER say you can predict your dogs behavior! Look at those who probably said that - they're easy to find - watch the news!!
Posted by: Bob Klich on Jul 11, 2008 at 11:18 AM
Clown Prince-YOU are right with the map! Folks there is a BIG difference between a bite and an attack! THAT is why you hear about Pit Bulls in the media! BAN'EM NOW
Posted by: Pat on Jul 11, 2008 at 11:04 AM
A few more comments. First of all, regardless of whether the dogs in question were all pits or not, why are all these dogs running amok in the first place? Obviously existing laws regarding containment of pets are not being enforced, so what good would a pit bull ban do? Secondly, before all the pit owners go bananas, Omaha could do what my municipality in St Louis County has done. They've banned the Pits and the Rotts but allowed persons who already have one to keep it if they can show that the dog was owned prior to the ban's effective date. That way nobody has Fluffy taken away from them--unless they're so irresponsible that they never had the dog licensed or innoculated so they have proof of prior ownership, in which case they don't need to be owning a pit or even a chihuahua! It's just that when Fluffy dies, the owner will not be able to get another Pit or Rott. Sounds fair to me.
Posted by: Edgar on Jul 11, 2008 at 10:26 AM
Most people respond to money/fines. How about $10,000 and restitution for the first time a dog bites someone or another dog. Some insurance policies exclude dogs from coverage for a good reason.
Posted by: Sigrid on Jul 11, 2008 at 10:20 AM
My sister lived next door to a family with an Alaskan Husky, which barked ferociously and strained at his chain everytime her cat went outdoors. He also barked at her, and the mother of the family made her son get rid of his dog because she was worried it would break the chain and hurt other animals and people. She had some real sense.
Posted by: JAIMIE on Jul 11, 2008 at 06:17 AM
I HAVE TWO PITBULLS AND THEY ARE THE BEST DOGS EVER YES MINE ARE I DON'T KNOW ABOUT ALL THE OTHER DOGS OUT THERE BUT IM A GOOD OWNER AND THEY NEED TO BE PUTTING THE OWNERS BEHIND BARS OR EVEN KILLED CAUSE WE ARE THE ONES THAT RAISE THESE ANIMALS TO BE WHO THEY ARE JUST LIKE OUR KIDS.WE HAVE HAD OUR DOGS FOUR ALMOST FOUR YEARS NOW AND THEY HAVE BEEN RAISED AROUND THREE KIDS AND I HAVE NEVER HAD A PROBLEM WITH THEM.MY DOGS ARE SO GOOD THAT I DON'T EVEN NEED A LEESH TO LET THEM OUTSIDE.TO ALL THE OTHER PITBULL OWNERS THESE ANIMALS YOU NEED TO SHOW THEM LOVE AND AFFECTION SO THEY DON'T BECOME THIS TYPE OF DOG.PLEASE TO EVERYONE DON'T JUDGE ALL THE PITBULLS WHEN YOU HAVE NO CLUE ON HOW THEY ALL ARE.
Posted by: Pete on Jul 11, 2008 at 03:56 AM
I have been robbed at gunpoint, I have had my house broken into while my family slept. Just because a few bad owners cannot control their pet, is NOT means to take away my right to DETOUR crime away from me and my family. You have guns in your homes with your children. That is your right and your choice. You do NOT have a right to tell me that I cannot have MY PROPERTY protected by WHATEVER animal I choose, whether it be pitbull or poodle! Like the ordinance states in J's response, and I quote, "No animal may be declared dangerous that inflicts injury or damage on a person committing a willful trespass or other tort upon premises occupied by the owner or lessee of the animal, or committing or attempting to commit a crime. No animal may be declared dangerous for taking any action to defend or protect a human being within the immediate vicinity of the animal from an unjustified attack or assault." My dogs are in MY yard. Lemme guess, I can't smoke in my yard either? Gimme a break.
Posted by: JOHN on Jul 11, 2008 at 03:51 AM
The two facts here. 1.Pit Bulls are dangerous. 2. If you think they are not, you should have taking the short bus to school.
Posted by: Kent on Jul 11, 2008 at 12:42 AM
Angel Wings - how do you propose the court determine if a dog is a dangerous animal? Should the court (1) immediately declare every pit bull is a dangerous animal? Or should the court (2) wait until a pit bull attacks before declaring it a dangerous animal? Would you support option (1), or would you complain that it's unfair to "good owners"? The problem is, option (2) is no different from what we have now: the dog attacks, is determined dangerous, and is put down. No dog would ever get as far as being insured. If you and enough pit bull owners support option (1), we might get somewhere. Otherwise, your "law already on the books" is useless to this discussion.
Posted by: Jeff on Jul 11, 2008 at 12:28 AM
Lee defends pit bulls by claiming, "You have the responsibility of being prepared and protecting yourself at all times from any perceivable threats." So, we should all carry guns to protect ourselves from pit bull attacks, right Lee? We should have our children carry guns to protect themselves from pit bull attacks when we’re not with them, right Lee? We and our children should wear foam body suits in case we don’t kill the pit bull before it bites one of us, right Lee? Or, maybe we should ban pit bulls so our children don’t have to walk the sidewalks or play in their own yards in fear! What Lee has done is the classic turn around or responsibility. Instead of pit bull owners bearing responsibility for their dogs, Lee thinks everyone else should be responsible to defend themselves from the dogs of irresponsible pit bull owners! We shouldn’t have to defend ourselves! ONLY A PIT BULL BAN WILL SOLVE THIS PROBLEM.
Posted by: David on Jul 10, 2008 at 10:29 PM
BSL's were designed for pit bulls. No other breed of dog is anywhere near as dangerous. It doesn't matter how many will bite, it's how much damage they will do. 10 out of the last 12 commenters say to ban them or put them in Zoos. Every where a pit bull ban has been tried it has stood and worked, anyone that says different is a liar. BSL's work, Denver has had their's in place for 15 years and never proposed any other breed be added. Pit bullers fill these sites with bull and fool people into thinking the dogs a safe and then you have another person attacked. Check out dogsbite.org/blog you will see just how many people are being mauled by these dogs.
Posted by: tHe cLoWn PrInCE on Jul 10, 2008 at 09:43 PM
most dangerous dog a dascshund???? BAWHAHAHA. I thought you were making a joke. but then came "its the owner" bullsqueeze. what is a dascshund going to do to me nibble my ankles?? I am now totally convinced that PIT OWNERS ARE AS INSANE AS THEIR DOGS
Posted by: Angel Wings on Jul 10, 2008 at 08:32 PM
Sec. 6-157. Proof of insurance for dangerous animals. Any animal that has been determined to be a dangerous animal by a court determination and that is required to be licensed under this chapter cannot be licensed at the next annual license renewal period unless the person having custody, ownership or control of such dog or other animal first presents written proof of public liability insurance of not less than $100,000.00 to the authority. (Ord. No. 36463, § 2, 12-16-03) This law is already on the books~but not being enforced~So a ban would be ridiculous when the current laws aren't being enforced. Lets try to enforce the laws that are already in place before we make more laws. Also how do you expect the BSL to be enforced? when they can't even enforce the leash law. This isn't a little dirt water town like Council Bluffs with 600 dogs, this is a big city with 5000 to 10000 pitbulls here.
Posted by: J on Jul 10, 2008 at 07:25 PM
@Anonymous, Omaha @3:29 p.m. I posted the entirety of Omaha's law on "Dangerous Animals". How much stricter do you want to get? By law, the pit bull that attacked Shadow is a "Dangerous Animal", since it attacked a domesticated animal. But was the law enforced? No, the pit bull is still at home, awaiting a court order, since it did not bite a human. That's NOT how the law reads. The "Dangerous Animal" law that Omaha has now is NOT being enforced. If you don't want a specific breed ban, then demand of the mayor and the City Council that the law on the books be enforced. Whether it be a chihuahua, German Shepherd or pit bull, if the dog snaps, bites or has a disposition to do so, it is "Dangerous". If you want the mayor and City Council to consider adding a law to prevent certain breeds or sizes *from* "snapping or biting", my guess is you're going to have a tough row to hoe, just because of arguments such as the one you made.
Posted by: Dear Annonymous on Jul 10, 2008 at 07:02 PM
If your child had been walking the rat terrier and came across PIT BULLS then YOUR CHILD would have been mauled also, not just the little dog. The response to put the attacking sheperds to sleep was the right one, but let's be thankful that your 9 yr old had not encountered PIT BULLS while walking the rat terrier -- ! If a dog injurs another dog it's a bad thing --If a dog mauls a PERSON it's a HORRIBLE TRAGEDY! Big difference.
Posted by: Brad L. on Jul 10, 2008 at 05:51 PM
#2 biggest biters are labs? That's the biggest load of bollocks I've ever heard! If you have half a brain, google for "top 10 dogs that bite the most". The first 3 hits come up with the list, and they are, in descending order: 10. Dalmations. 9. Boxer. 8. Presa Canario. 7. Chow Chow. 6. Doberman Pinscher. 5. Alaskan Malamutes. 4. Huskies. 3. German Shepherds. 2. Rottweilers. And #1??? PIT BULLS. Not a single Lab there. As far as "man's best friend", it's not because they protect, they provide COMPANIONSHIP, are faithful, and will be there for you when you need them, not sick someone and maim them. If you think that, then you're really not fit to be a dog owner, especially if you have a dog that is careless like this! Get rid of them, and either fine the owner, or make them get liability insurance for the dog. If one comes after me, I guarantee they and the owner will expect to be in a world of hurt. Ban 'em.
Posted by: Davis on Jul 10, 2008 at 05:18 PM
The whole notion that proper nurturing and training will raise a pit bull that doesn't attack give merit to the opinion that a ban on these dogs is needed? Why? Because no other breed requires the intensive upbringing that a pit bull does to make it less aggressive. When a pit bull snaps -- it goes berserk. I've seen a pit bull attack. It's a blood bath. The owners of dogs that snap always say they never saw it coming. They would be with the other owners on this board defending thier pets as tame had they not snapped.
Posted by: Tones on Jul 10, 2008 at 05:10 PM
Here we go again! When is the city going to put a stop to these senseless attacks? The breed needs to be BANNED! Too many innocents are getting mauled by pit bulls. To the owners of these dogs, I say GROW UP! They are not your children, they are animals. When they turn on you and shred a family member or nieghbor, just remember --we told you so!!!
Posted by: Anonymous on Jul 10, 2008 at 03:29 PM
I feel very sorry for anybody who has their life hurt by a dog. However, I must comment on the fact that there are many dangerous dogs in the world. I had a Rat Terrier and my 9 year old son was walking her around the block on a leash. Three German Shepards got out of their locked kennel and tore my dog to pieces. Luckily they did not harm my son, but, the police were called, the German Shepards were put to sleep and this did not make any front page newspaper or top story of the news. It is very upsetting to me that just because it was a pit bull the news goes wild. If the news would report all dog attacks instead of just the pit bull ones, we would all see that it is not just pit bulls. And actually other breeds of dogs would rip someone apart just like a pit bull. A pit bull bites and holds on. Other breeds bite and bite and bite and bite. Banning pit bulls is not the answer. People just need stricted laws and fines about how they need to keep their dogs.
Posted by: Cindy on Jul 10, 2008 at 03:14 PM
A pitbull ban should be passed immediately AND all pitbulls need to be surrendered to the Humane Society within 60 days. Owners that refuse to surrender their dogs should be turned in to the police and heavily fined along with the dogs being removed and euthanized. The Humane Society keeps records on all pitbull bites in town and those dogs should be sought out and destroyed immediately.
Posted by: mike Reyes on Jul 10, 2008 at 03:01 PM
i agree with the person who said its the owners fault.I think everyone just likes to jump the gun and follow the crowd.look at the facts people which dogs bite the most i understand some of you would rather get bit by a small dog over a big one look at it like this a gun in the wrong hands is deadly do you want to get shot with a small gun or a big one you decide.people need to pay for these crimes
Posted by: annonymous on Jul 10, 2008 at 02:58 PM
The most dangerous dog in the us is the Dascshund and second is the Chihuahua,third is the Jack Russell Terrier and the Pit Bull is sixth so ban all of them before u get to the Pit Bull, its not the breed its the owner, so U have to start there. Just this year in Omaha the Human Society are let people have the option of adopting the Pit Bull, of course with alot of Rules and charges involved,we as a city have come a long way and now bcuz of some terrible Pit Bull owners every one has to suffer. All Pit Bulls are not mean.
Posted by: Tami on Jul 10, 2008 at 02:26 PM
As a resident of Council Bluffs, I think Omaha should ban the pitt bull breed. Since Council Bluffs banned this breed, we have had no problems. I am sure there are good pit-bulls out there, but they still are a dangerous breed, it is in their blood....I have a hunting dog, she is a fully lazy house dog (she never hunted-never has) but she still has the instinct when we walk, she still points at birds, ect.. --my point, it is breed in her blood to hunt...aggression is in pitt bull breeds..without a doubt. Since CB banned this breed, it is nice knowing that is some piece of mind knowing that there is no pitbull lunging out....which was on every corner before the ban, now, I am lucky to see any. One can own a pitbull in CB, but has to take out liability insurance. This ban needs be come into effect soon, because only the responsible people and the ones who will respect this breed will abide by this new law if it passes with owning one of these dogs which insurance should be manditory...
Posted by: jjj on Jul 10, 2008 at 01:14 PM
Chelsy, the dog whisperer - you could have your own show! Serious, I guess someone has to die before anything is done.
Posted by: tHe CloWn PrINce on Jul 10, 2008 at 01:06 PM
M- I'd never think of a chow as a friendly dog, the 3 that I've known were borderline pyscho and got even grumpier with age. the list of biters that I found was 1)pitbull 2)rotweiller 3)chow and 4)wolf hybrid. To the "it's how you raise them people", there are lots of breeds that you don't have to train the inborn aggression and mental instability out of. And there are lots of dogs that even if they are aggressive they aren't deadly and can't break off their leash. This combination is what worries the average person walking down the street with their kids.
Posted by: Essie on Jul 10, 2008 at 01:05 PM
WOW! By the reasoning of 90% of the people posting here, we'd better get rid of cars because drunk drivers get into accidents with innocent people. No wait - let's get rid of all knives because of all the crimes committed by thugs with knives. Quit with your kneejerk reactions people and think about this. Your freedoms are being taken away in droves (and notice I said "freedoms" and not "rights") and you want to ban a breed of dog in Omaha. The real problem is the lack of a law with enough teeth (no pun intended) to fully punish the owners of these dogs that are attacking innocent people. Banning the pit MIGHT temporarily stop the attacks (as we've seen in C.B.) but it won't stop them forever. Owners will go underground to get and hide their dogs. We need to go after the dog owners and do more than slap them on the wrist - Put the owners in jail & give them huge fines (and lower my taxes by the way). Make the human responsible!!
Posted by: RM on Jul 10, 2008 at 12:58 PM
I suppose the mayor,city council and Pam Wiese want more studies or more children's heads partially torn off before they decide maybe to ban the breed. Sure its the owners fault but since owners wont abide by the law ban the breed. Of course all you law abbiding pitbull owners could tell the inhumane society who the bad owners are so they can take of the problem before there is one.
Posted by: mich on Jul 10, 2008 at 12:44 PM
Please keep in mind just like CB,that if they do enforce a pitbull ban,that by no means does that mean that OPD or NHS is going to drive around rally up these dogs for a mass execution.It usally means that current dogs in Omaha will be grandfathered in, but with strict regulations on these dogs (muzzles, spaying ect). But people will be unable to LEGALLY adopt or purchase these dogs while living in Omaha.I think everybody is hoping that all pits will be removed from Omaha with the ban, its just a way to control the situation not eliminate the dogs.
Posted by: JD on Jul 10, 2008 at 12:15 PM
Money speaks - enact and enforce a HUGE fine for any dog owner whose dog attacks a human or another dog.
Posted by: Scott on Jul 10, 2008 at 12:08 PM
But I'm sure it is a friendly dog and wouldn't hurt a fly!! What a joke!!! BAN PIT BULLS!!!!!
Posted by: Get Real! on Jul 10, 2008 at 12:01 PM
My family has had pit bulls for the last 10 years. 1 of the 3 has been aggressive. The other two were completely sweet. Our current one thinks he is a lap dog. He is 80 pounds of pure lap dog. Do I, as an owner, believe they can cause damage? Yes I do. Do I believe that they are known as an agressive breed? yes. Do I think that owners should control and restrain the pets for which they are responsible for? ABSOLUTELY. Is the breed responsible? somewhat. Are the owners of these dogs responsible for how they train and restrain them? YES. I am heartbroken whenever I see a story on the news about a pit bull bite, especially the little baby. However, if the media reported EVERY dog bite that happens in a city the size of Omaha, I am sure that there would be more than they could handle. The exposure is there b/c it is a pit bull. Pam Wiese of the NE Humane Society said herself that Labs were the cause of the highest amount of bites last year! What's next people? Your yippy poodle!
Posted by: Muzzled on Jul 10, 2008 at 12:00 PM
Thanks to whoever made the club,I use it to protect my car but on this day I used it to protect me and my grandson from a dog attack,I did't even see it my 1yr old grandson said oggy his word for doogy and I saw the dog standind at the back of my car,what happen next I give thanks to God,becaude normally I wouldn't put the club on my car but I didn't,it was like a movie the club on the floor behind the seat,it was all one movement I grabbed the club and turned around just as the dog came at me,when he open it mouth I stuck out the club and it went right in it mouth my neighbor was outside and came to help.I know the dog was hurt but it ran away,what breed I'm not sure the kids say it was the pit from the next block.My feelings are the owner would be responsible for everything.So let's go one step farther make all owners of any breed of dog large are small put a MUZZLE on it when it's outside with or without the owner being there that way if it does get away at less it can't bite
Posted by: Steve on Jul 10, 2008 at 11:20 AM
To Chelsey.....YOUR COMMENTS ARE TRULY THE BIGGEST JOKE I'VE READ IN A LONG TIME ! ! ! Do you know why they call them animals? Because they are just that...ANIMALS ! ! ! And you'll sit here & say you can predict your dogs' reaction before you? ? ? Give me your address, I'll come over & we'll see what happens. That is the most ridiculous comment I've EVER HEARD IN MY LIFE ! ! !
Posted by: Steve on Jul 10, 2008 at 11:15 AM
HERE WE GO AGAIN ! ! ! Another pit bull attack on an elderly woman. Ban them? Why of course. END OF DISCUSSION ! ! !
Posted by: Anonymous on Jul 10, 2008 at 10:43 AM
md... I'd bet if you went after the gang bangers, youd find alot of the pits as well. Easy solution. 2 for 1.
Posted by: J on Jul 10, 2008 at 10:18 AM
. . .Unfortunately, since this provision of Municipal Code also gets as well enforced as the provisions for keeping your dogs on a leash and cleaning up after your dog, you can see why I am skeptical about claims by Mark Langan and Pam Wiese of the Humane Society that this provision by Omaha is sufficient to protect the public in general from all breeds of dogs. If owners cannot/will not license their pets or get them rabies shots, why in the world would they comply with mandatory training, insurance or muzzles/e-collars? As for e-collars, they only work until the battery dies. Paper says that there were 2 pit bull shootings on Monday, because they were roaming/attacking in different parts of the city. Either enforce the current law, or enact a new one.
Posted by: J on Jul 10, 2008 at 10:13 AM
. . . No animal may be declared dangerous that inflicts injury or damage on a person committing a willful trespass or other tort upon premises occupied by the owner or lessee of the animal, or committing or attempting to commit a crime. No animal may be declared dangerous for taking any action to defend or protect a human being within the immediate vicinity of the animal from an unjustified attack or assault. The court may, in addition to any other fine or judgment, order the authority to forthwith put the animal to death by removing the same to the animal shelter for such purpose. Any person found guilty of violating this section shall pay all expenses, including shelter, food, veterinary expenses for identification or certification of the animal, boarding and veterinary expenses necessitated by the seizure of any animal for the protection of the public and such other expenses as may be required for the destruction of any such animal. (Ord. No. 36463, § 2, 12-16-03)
Posted by: J on Jul 10, 2008 at 10:12 AM
Omaha City Code: Sec. 6-149. Dangerous animals generally. No person shall own, keep or harbor, or allow to be in or upon any premises occupied by him, or under his charge or control, any dangerous animal without said dog or other animal being confined so as to protect the public from injury. A dangerous animal is defined as one who meets one or more of the following conditions: (a) Any animal which attacks a human being or other domestic animal one or more times, without provocation. (b) Any animal with a history, tendency or disposition to attack, to cause injury or to otherwise endanger the safety of human beings or other domestic animals. (c) Any animal that snaps, bites or manifests a disposition to snap or bite. (d) Any animal engaging in or found to have been trained to engage in exhibitions of fighting, except where the animal's training has been acquired and fighting done in connection with lawful activities of law enforcement officials . . .
Posted by: Hahaha... on Jul 10, 2008 at 10:01 AM
I would love to comment on this story, but I can't stop laughing at Chelsey SERIOUSLY saying that she can predict her dogs' behavior!!!!! Maybe she should quit her job and open up a pet psychic/mind-reader business.
Posted by: M on Jul 10, 2008 at 09:59 AM
It's too bad for the owners of the nice pit bulls, maybe yours are trained and sweet, but the fact remains, these dogs don't just bite, they tear people apart. I'm sure you can love another breed just as much as your pit bull,or is it that you want a dog that makes you feel above the rest because of their reputation? All dogs can bite, and if that is all a pit bull did, there wouldn't be this call for bans, but these dogs go in for the kill. They are not ment to be family pets. Sorry, but I feel pitbulls need to be banned.
Posted by: pat on Jul 10, 2008 at 09:54 AM
Breed specific bans are ineffective; the same people will have other breeds that are not properly restrained and socialized. And for all the sue-happpy people here, what do you think you're going to get out of the people who have these dogs? Most of them don't have anything so they don't care, if you have something to lose you are more careful. I do a lot of running, and I have seen many breeds along the way that act agressive when I run by, but I run a few extra steps out of the way to avoid a close confrontation, and most people walking their dogs will usually do the same. As for unrestrained dogs, I have found that most large breeds (including pits) don't bother running after me, its usually the little ankle nippers running loose that are the problem. I would never stay on the same side of the street with any agressive acting dog with small children. Yes, I know we all have the right to be on the sidewalk without being threatened or attacked but you CAN AVOID many problems too.
Posted by: fix it on Jul 10, 2008 at 09:45 AM
How many incidents will it take before our smart mayor outlaws pitbulls? I think pit bulls should be outlawed and any other breed that attacks should be taken by humane society and put down as well. If any dog attacks it is because the owner has not taught it how to behave properly. People buy dogs not realizing that they are indeed expensive(training,vet,food,grooming). If you properly train your animal your the only one responsible. The ban laws have worked for other cities and they are better for it. Not doing much about the violence Mayor.....can you at least fix this dog issue???
Posted by: Wake Up on Jul 10, 2008 at 09:31 AM
For you suggesting tougher laws; ask the DMV how many people actually comply with insurrance laws. As far as Labs being the number 2 biter, Id rather be bitten by a lab EVERYDAY than a Pit Bull once. Pit's are DESIGNED with extrodinary jaws similar to that of an Alligator. The pressure they can bring with their jaws is FAR worse than a LAB! Some of you people are just plain ignorant and heartless. How many old ladies need to be terrorized, how many babies need to lose their faces? Talk to the little girl who has several head wounds, tell her to her face it's the owners. Some of you are so heartless you could do it without flinching. Disgusting. Why are people defending an animal that has STACKS of reports of VISCIOUS attacks. Rots aren't even that bad. You can get a Rot off ya, Pit, those things LATCH on, and don't let go. Until they think you are dead. Which is their goal when they attack. They don't attack to scare, attack to kill.
Posted by: Kymm on Jul 10, 2008 at 09:26 AM
I am sadden by these attacks what is going on? I feel something has to be done and if a ban on these dogs will do it by all means ban these animals from the city are better yet the state.Let's start out by making the owners of these animals,pitbull are any other animal legally responsible for any damage that animal causes,I've seen dogs running loose,in my area the owner knew her pitbulls was getting out in the mornings,everytime animal control was called the dogs would be inside,thank goodness the dogs was finally caught before any harm came to someone,as owners you know what your animal can do,I have a big dog and even with a fence I have to take care so I have a good chain on him and a lock on the gate because my dog can open the gate and jump the fence, so no matter what kind of animal/DOG you have if it attacks someone outside your home,you are responsible even if you don't have a puncture wound,just being chased can lead to pain and is very emotional so owners it's up to you.
Posted by: Annette on Jul 10, 2008 at 09:23 AM
A woman lives for 80 years and then this happens to her. God help us all. This is American and we should feel safe.
Posted by: Denise on Jul 10, 2008 at 09:22 AM
This is just another example of the city being afraid to put restrictions on an individual who chooses to engage in behavior that is harmful to others. We all have rights, but these rights MUST be balanced with our responsibility within society. When the city insists that the people who are so worried about their "rights" be made to be responsible for their actions then the government can butt out of individual's behavior and its consequences. The owners of the pitbulls should be held financially and morally responsible for these attacks. This woman should be compensated by whatever means for the harm these reckless pet owners have caused. Thank goodness she wasn't killed…. but maybe then the neighborhood would be rid of the dogs. If the Omaha city government is afraid to infringe on this individual RIGHTS by banning pitbulls, then they should legislate that when these attacks take place, immediate compensation for the resultant behavior should be awarded to the victims even if it means the owners home, paycheck or other assets. It is when individuals don't take responsibility for their harmful behaviors and actions that the government holds the moral duty to step in to maintain a safe society. Don't think I am not an animal lover, I have several cats and a dog. I would never think that it is my right to allow any of my pets to cause harm in whatever way to those around me.
Posted by: Pat on Jul 10, 2008 at 09:19 AM
Karma, I wouldn't discount the feelings of this elderly lady regardless of the severity of her injuries. Having a dog of any breed come after you and your pet is terrifying. If you're elderly and presumably frail and the dog in question is a big muscular oaf, well.... Most fatal dog attacks involve either children or elderly people because they are less able to defend themselves. I'll agree that pit bulls are only a symptom of irresponsible dog ownership and other dogs can also attack and kill. Frankly I wouldn't be wild about my border collie doing a multiple slash and feint if she went around the bend. In some states a friendly but overly exuberant dog can be deemed "vicious" and the owner held liable if said dog leaps on someone and knocks them down, injuring the person in the process. We all need to know our dogs, control our dogs, and train our dogs. The law needs provisions to force people into responsible ownership regardless of breed.
Posted by: w on Jul 10, 2008 at 09:08 AM
Ban all dogs since they all bite. Sure the bigger the dog the bigger the bite but all dog will bite at some time. Of course the real problem is the OWNER. The owner is the one that should be banned. I also think it odd omaha wants to ban a dog for violence but won't ban guns.
Posted by: Michelle on Jul 10, 2008 at 08:55 AM
Any breed of dog could be considered dangerous. It is how the dog is raised and its surroundings. Pit bulls are not the only dogs that attack; how about chows? My uncle got bit in the cheek by a chow and I know of other people that were attacked by usual friendly dogs like labs. So no matter how you look at it, there can be a vicious side to all animals and it really matters how they are trained. If they are trained to kill/fight then yes the dogs are a huge concern for society. I will have to agree in regards to making sure all dogs are on leashes and have the owner present at all times. The owner should be help responsible for any injuries their animal inflicts on someone else. My heart really does go out to everyone that has been affected by pit bull attacks...or any animal attacks for that matter.
Posted by: TJ on Jul 10, 2008 at 08:32 AM
NO it is NOT ALL about how you raise an animal, any animal. That is the problem here. These dogs are instictively a killer breed. Condition and training are one thing, but the owner can NEVER be sure that their pit bull will not act out no matter how well they think they are trained! BAN THEM!!!
Posted by: a on Jul 10, 2008 at 08:31 AM
Yes all breeds bite. But it seems that pitbulls "snap" more often then other dogs. When they do bite, they cause serious damage. Pitbull owners and defenders I have one question for you, "would you rather be locked in a room with a pitbull, or poodle?"
Posted by: md on Jul 10, 2008 at 08:29 AM
how many of you "ban them, kill them all" are going to want to open up your wallets to pay for all the cost of this ban? Do you think NHS wants to spend all its time going after these dogs? How many more officers they will have to hire? Would you rather OPD go after the dogs or spend their time going after the gang-bangers in Omaha? HOW MANY OF YOU ARE REALLY WILLING TO HAVE YOUR TAXES GO UP FOR THIS? Educate yourself. Breed specific bands don't work!
Posted by: Jamie on Jul 10, 2008 at 08:29 AM
T, get a clue.. rottweilers were not bred for fighting, they were bred to be working dogs (pulling carts, guarding etc) in Germany.. They are also on the low to medium risk level for aggression according to a news article released the other day.. the same article that stated weiner dogs were the most aggressive and that pitts are 6th most aggressive. Rotts are calm, reliable, intelligent dogs... Bans don't work... Give dog owners whose dogs attack bigger punishments instead.. maybe actual jail time instead of a little fine...
Posted by: mich on Jul 10, 2008 at 07:58 AM
Please go to the following website and read what the experts has to say about this issue nationwide.Finally a balanced article... http://www.pitbullsontheweb.com/hype.htm
Posted by: Anonymous on Jul 10, 2008 at 07:55 AM
Ban pit bulls and most serious dog attacks will disappear. Just ask those in C.B. If I'm wrong we can make minor adjustments later. Until then enough people and their pets have been hurt in Omaha.
Posted by: tHe CloWn PrInCe on Jul 10, 2008 at 07:43 AM
#2 biter is labs??? they are also the most common dog period, pitbulls are rare by comparison, plus a lab will stop. There is a huge difference in an attack from a pitbull or rottweiller and an attack from any other breed. you pit owners arguing that they are not dangerous are just fooling yourself, there are news stories, most recently from baltimore, where a pit turned on its owner and child, "I can't believe it, he never was aggressive before" DUMB. I'd sooner have a loaded gun in the house.
Posted by: Patrick on Jul 10, 2008 at 07:22 AM
I see the pit bull protagonists are easing their way out of the woodwork, whining, "It's not fair!" "It's not fair to focus on a single breed, because we can't do that with people!" "The only fair thing is to punish all dog owners by implementing a dangerous dog ordinance." First of all, let me remind you: a dog is not a person. So, yes, we can focus on one breed. Once again: a dog is not a person. If you treat your pit bull like a child, you have issues. If you have real children, they probably have issues over the favoritism you show your pit bull. Pit bulls are causing the vast majority of DEBILITATING INJURIES, and we need to be PROACTIVE and ban pit bulls. A ban will prevent the vast majority of injuries. A dangerous dog ordinance will force us to be REACTIVE, because the ordinance would leave pit bulls in Omaha and allow the attacks to continue. Why wait for attacks to happen, when we know they will? BE PROACTIVE: Ban pit bulls NOW, and we'll prevent many more injuries!
Posted by: anonymous on Jul 10, 2008 at 07:11 AM
For you people thinking a ban on a breed is the answer obviously don't have a clue! Read the facts before posting uneducated comments! Clown Prince, Steel Trap? Thats one of many exaggerated uneducated comments I refer to!
Posted by: Da the Man on Jul 10, 2008 at 06:56 AM
to karma you sound like you know all about this wht dont you fill us all in. I think you are just mad becuse you might own a pit bull and do not want it taken could that be it. Why else would you come here and be so hateful, Lets hear from those who came to chase off this dog. And one other thing just wait till it happen to you or your children then I know you will sing a different tune. Get a life you sound like you need one
Posted by: jj on Jul 10, 2008 at 06:46 AM
Hey Karma.... you need to wake up and see the world for what it is, and who made you the new media critic for Omaha? was it your pit bull?
Posted by: BAN PBs on Jul 10, 2008 at 05:07 AM
I am so sick and tired of the argument that "well labs are ranked #2 for bites behind pits, so labs should be banned too." Give me a break! We're not (or at least I'm not) just talking about "bites". We're talking about the carnage inflicted when these vicious and unpredictable animals attack someone. Which why if it's always the owners fault, why aren't most of the owners attacked like random people or toddlers? Why is it that almost everytime this happens, the owner seems as shocked as the victim? Is it because the owner is that naive, or were there really not any signs? This is an unnatural breed of dog that at most should be eliminated completely, but at the very least be banned in cities and residential areas.
Posted by: Tammy on Jul 10, 2008 at 03:20 AM
I am sorry to hear that this elderly lady had to watch her pet be attacked..but how is her being injured have anything to do with it being a pitbull. dogs attack other dogs when they think the other is in their territory... i know for a fact that there is still pittbulls living in council bluffs and no it isn't me..is that what we want is for these dogs to go undetected totally until another attacks..then what ?they arent registered or probably havent had shots if the owner is hiding them. i live in a small town and my neighbors don't mind my pittbull. people need to get off the pitbull hatred and move on to what actually is going on..the owners need to be held responsible for any dog attack not just pitts..a ban will just cause more problems and the ones that live there now will be grandfathered so you still will have pittbulls living in omaha..
Posted by: Kent on Jul 10, 2008 at 02:17 AM
Karma, you're obviously reading a different story than what's written here. You say the dog didn't even require stitches? READ THE STORY. You say Dorothy only twisted her ankle? READ THE STORY. Of course you think all pit bulls are friendly; you lie and deny obvious truth. You say this is an over sensationalized story, because you won't accept the truth. The most frustrating thing about pit bull defenders like you, Karma, is your willful ignorance of your dogs' capabilities and your outright crusade to blame victims for their injuries suffered from an attack!
Posted by: t on Jul 10, 2008 at 01:31 AM
It is amazing. Have you ever thought that maybe the owners of the dog wouldn't speak with the station? Pretty easy to start a conspiracy theory without all the information.
Posted by: Sue on Jul 10, 2008 at 01:26 AM
I have to agree with the many voices, calling for a ban, or at a minimum, a muzzle be required if they are outside. Denver has a ban, & it's helped immensely, as well as Council Bluffs. My neighborhood, in mid-town, has several new pitbulls since Council Bluffs banned them. When you see the owners struggling to hold their leashes as another dog passes by or watching them lunge at their fences when you are walking your dog, it's terrifying. And the people that I have seen with them, in our neighborhood,have them as pets,not fighting dogs. I just think their temperments are bad for living in a city. They are so strong and athletic, that there is always a fear of them breaking a leash or climbing a fence. It was so nice for so many years, where you never had to worry about your kids or your own dog being killed in a dog attack. Yes, all dogs can bite, but the problems that seem to be happening with pits, is that they attack. There is a difference.
Posted by: Pete on Jul 10, 2008 at 01:16 AM
All you people are welcomed to come over to my house one by one and pet my pitbulls. I have two of them, and they won't bite a single one of ya. Enough with the ignorant snobbish attitude you people have taken. This is America, and if you ban pitbulls, then you should ban guns, vehicles, alcohol etc. Life is no fairy tale people. Just because you don't own a pitbull, or just because you don't smoke, doesn't give you the right to BAN anything!! Quit being such selfish minded people that think governments sole responsibility is to cater to you. Guess what, government has a lot bigger priorities than to waste anymore time altering the lives of Americans any more than they already do. If you feel threatened by a dog, move. If you don't like smoke, don't go where smoke is present. Grow up and do things for YOURSELF instead of always trying to run to Big Brother to do things for you. I'll be at the council meetings as well, WITH MY DOGS!! WELCOME TO COME PET THEM IF YOU PLEASE!!THEN JUDGE!
Posted by: Faith on Jul 10, 2008 at 12:11 AM
I cannot believe the ignorance shown in many of the comments posted here. I am hearing a lot of talking about banning an entire breed for the actions of this one dog, but no one is crying out for harsh punishment for irresponsible dog owners AND this particular pit bull owner was obviously irresponsible. I feel sad for this poor woman as this attack was preventable IF officials would only enforce the laws they already have. What is wrong with this country when dangerous dogs of ALL breeds are cited more than once before any serious action is taken that would prevent these horrible attacks from taking place. Punish idiot dog owners who fail their dogs and our communities, not pit bulls who are also just victims in these cases. I am an owner of two pit bulls, one who was certified with her CGC (Canine Good Citizen) just yesterday. I have lost count of the number of owners who let their aggressive dogs run off leash and have tried to attack myself and my dogs. Ban stupid dog owners!
Posted by: Karma on Jul 9, 2008 at 10:54 PM
This dog has a puncture wound from what I can tell, It didn't even require stitches and the woman twisted her ankle. How is the ankle twisting the dogs fault? and lets see a picture of the dog? I would be willing to bet it isn't even a pitbull. This is a over sensationalized story, strange no other media outlet picked up this story. I see a hidden agenda here. I can hear the hatred in the elderly womans voice for dogs she has never even met.
Posted by: wags on Jul 9, 2008 at 10:33 PM
How about mandatory jail time for any dog attack, be it pit, rot, or lab? Make the owners hurt. Any medium to large size dog attack can be dangerous. Forget about breed specific. It could make the less responsible people think twice about owning a dog. I don't mean overnight jail, I mean minimum of a year maximum depending on the severity of injury.
Posted by: Me on Jul 9, 2008 at 10:32 PM
What happens if the dog attacking isn't a Pit Bull? Will there be a consequence? I, for one, want to be protected from any dog breed that attacks. I'm sure there are other dog attacks, but we don't hear about them because it isn't a Pit Bull and thus not as news worthy. Protect the public from all vicious dogs and put a dangerous dog ordinance in place. Large fines and jail time may be a deterrant.
Posted by: Mom & Teacher on Jul 9, 2008 at 10:18 PM
So if you ban Pit Bulls and another breed attacks, then what? How about making a dangerous dog ordinance that would take care of ANY breed that attacks and hurts people and pets. A dangerous dog ordinance would cover ALL dogs. I agree that owners of any vicious dog should be held accountable and made to pay hefty fines, pay for all the medical and vet bills, and do some time in jail. Increase the fines if a dog is on school property. Bad/vicious dog owners should be banned from owning any dog. While we are at it, put a ban on tethering/chaining a dog outside. Again, hefty fines would deter the problem. Tethering is partially to blame for dogs being aggressive. Teasing, neglect, and lack of socialization all increase when a dog is chained. Fix the problem correctly and pass a dangerous dog ordinance!
Posted by: SUE THE DOG'S OWNER on Jul 9, 2008 at 10:16 PM
I think the dogs should be banned, but don't wait for that...this woman should go after the dogs owner...for all he has & then some.
Posted by: llr on Jul 9, 2008 at 10:15 PM
The world might not be a safe place, but it should be REASONABLY safe in that you can walk your dog, go for a walk or jog, sit on your porch or pull your kids in a little red wagon without fear or dread that some crazed animal will attack you, maim or kill your own dog, or rip your baby's scalp off. You can cite all the dog bite statistics you want, but the fact remains that pit bulls latch on to DESTROY and other dogs just "bite". You can bet any pit bull that comes on MY property and attacks me or mine will get a .44 between the eyes. And I won't miss. I would prefer strangling it to death with my bare hands, but from all the reports, I probably won't have that option...
Posted by: mich on Jul 9, 2008 at 09:56 PM
This is a shame,I have a pitbull who was taken out of a very bad life,they cut her ears to her head and she had hearing problems.Yet she is one of the best dogs,she have even been involved in therapy work and does great.She is as docile as could be.Yet I would never leave her unsupervised outside even with a 6 foot fence, I walk her in a pinch collar, and when we do therapy work I am always right there. She may not need all this supervision,but why take a risk. In the 70's dobermans were the problem, 80's the German shepherd, then pits, once they are banned people will move on to Rotts.I dont know how I feel about the ban,I am a very responsible owner who puts tons of time into training and caring for my dog its not fair to me,but at the same time this breed needs very responsible ownership which may be hard to enforce.I guess its easier to enforce a breed ban rather then enforcing owner responsiblity.
Posted by: S on Jul 9, 2008 at 09:55 PM
Pit Bulls need to be banned. The owners are not showing responsibility in properly socializing, training and restraining these dogs. I know it will ruin it for the ones that are responsible, however we can't go on with all of these attacks. Eventually someone will be killed. Omaha needs to protect its citizens. I believe it is the city's responsibility to do that. Also the owners of these dogs need to Pay restitution for the injury of the victims, maybe they will think twice about keeping that breed if you hit them in their wallet or do jail time. Ban them Omaha or Do Something, this is getting out of control.
Posted by: joel on Jul 9, 2008 at 09:48 PM
The Mayors office better react quickly to this problem before the national m