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
Pit Bull Owner Pleads No Contest Save Email Print
Tina Agerson owned dog that mauled toddler
Posted: 10:46 AM Sep 16, 2008
 Last Updated: 6:49 PM Sep 17, 2008
 Email Address: sixonline@wowt.com
114 comments
A | A | A

The owner of the pit bull that attacked a 15-month-old girl in June, pleaded no contest Wednesday to charges of possessing and harboring a dangerous animal.

Each charge carries a $500 fine and up to six months in jail. Tina Agerson's pit bull ripped part of the scalp off of Charlotte Blevins. Her mother Wendy Blevins was also attacked.

Agerson will be sentenced on December 4th.

Wendy is among those speaking in favor of toughening the laws against dangerous dogs. The Omaha City Council held a public hearing on the issue Tuesday afternoon.

Under the ordinance, owners of breeds considered "potentially dangerous," would have to spay or neuter their dogs. They would also be required to carry insurance and all pit bulls would have to be leashed and muzzled anytime they are outside a fenced yard.

While Wendy would like a total pit bull ban, she'll settle for the current proposal with amendments. "Unless the animal is under the care of someone 19 years or older, I think that should be changed to 21 years old and restrained securely. I do not believe it should be a leash, I believe it should be a harness."

Charlotte is doing well after three surgeries. She's not scheduled to have another until after her second birthday.

Tuesday was the second reading for the ordinance and the last chance for people on both sides of the pit bull debate. Some called for nothing less than a full-scale ban.

"Every dog was bred for a specific purpose,” said Council Bluffs City Assistant Attorney Don Bauermeister. Council Bluffs already has a pit bull ban in place.

“That purpose for a pit bull is a felony in all 50 states, that was the purpose of the pit bull, that's what they do," said Bauermeister. "You cannot trust a pit bull not to fight."

"In researching a total ban, the most glaring problem is that comparable cities with bans are still having problems with pit bulls,” said Nebraska Humane Society president Judy Varner.

Others said the ordinance is prejudicial. "Singling out one specific breed of dog under this law will do nothing to protect the citizens of Omaha from any other dog and I question how the already stressed Humane Society will be able to handle this,” said Angel Petty.

“This ordinance will only punish responsible pet owners who have their dogs registered," said Petty. "Owners that don't have their dogs registered will continue to have their dogs underground, without insurance, without licensing and without vaccinations."

"I personally feel that the insurance portion of the legislation is a bit excessive,” said Carrie Brown, a dog trainer.

The City Council will take all that was said under advisement. Two members were absent, but will get a recording of the hearing.

The council can still revise the ordinance before a final vote which could happen as early as next week. There's a chance that vote could be delayed until September 30th.
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: chance on Sep 24, 2008 at 12:19 AM
its not the dog its the owners. any dog with 4 legs and teeth can bite or attack. i am so sick of people complainin that pit bulls are mean dogs there not. the only time u hear about dogs attackin is when its a pit. u never here about all the other attacks by different breeds. pit bulls are not mean by nature u have to make them mean just like any other dog. i have a pit and a 1 year old boy they are just fine with each other. i have had more than one pit and have never had one b mean to anyone or anything. if u train your dog right and dont keep him chained up 24/7 they are just fine. blame the owners not the breed.
Posted by: Stunt Man Mike on Sep 23, 2008 at 11:10 AM
Props go out to Cory S. for the common sense post. So many "sheeple", so little time.
Posted by: Angie on Sep 22, 2008 at 06:38 PM
“That purpose for a pit bull is a felony in all 50 states, that was the purpose of the pit bull, that's what they do," said Bauermeister. "You cannot trust a pit bull not to fight." Well, Bauermeister, I trust mine!! Always have and always will. With my kids and the neighborhood kids and the daycare kids and the strangers walking by our house! Now, does that sound like a vicious killer? No, she is a big baby who would rather sleep on the couch with her pillow and blanket than chase the cats or rabbits around here. And the reason she is so mellow? Its called training. Which is what people should learn to do for their pets. Some may call them "tricks" but if you can control your dog for "tricks" then they are controllable enough for society. No muzzle for my dogs and no dangerous dog sign either. They are the complete opposite and I guess if you consider a big, wet tongue dangerous, then you judge them on that. Not the breed! Say no to BSL!!
Posted by: James on Sep 22, 2008 at 01:26 PM
This lady should be charged as though she herself did this too this precious girl. It is HER responsibility to control and train her dog for society.. Animals don't train themselves unless the owner does not! I myself own 2 pitbulls which are both liscened and vaccinated and the most friendly dogs you'd ever come across. But I do beleive all potentially dangerous dogs and owners should undergo specific training precedures. And that all truely dangerous animals be removed or euthanized and the owners be properly charged. Humans make animals what they are! It's just unfortunate that there are so many BAD pitbull owners. THis is due too the overbreeding of them and the fact that anyone and everyone can get these dogs anywhere.. Why can you go thru the classifieds and see so many people selling puppys of all breeds with NO breeding liscense and just the intent of making money, and no care where these dogs are going or what they will be used for good or bad..they just don't know..
Posted by: BanPeople on Sep 22, 2008 at 01:13 PM
Ban all these NO GOOD OWNERS(SUCH AS HER) FROM HAVING ANY ANIMALS. nOT FAIR TO TAKE MY AND OTHER PEOPLES GOOD DOGS JUST BECAUSE THERE ARE SO MANY OWNERS THAT DONT DESERVE TO HAVE ANY KIDS OR ANIMALS. IF YOU THINK OTHERWISE, LETS JUST MAKE ALL DOGS AND CATS EXTINCT SINCE THE BREED YOU OWN HAS BITTEN OR KILLED TOO.
Posted by: CoreyS. on Sep 22, 2008 at 01:07 PM
Ok the Dutch government lifted a 25 year ban on pit's, because it did not decrease dog bites or did it increase dog bite's, so your telling me that a ban would help Omaha? Get a clue people! If it didn't work in one of the oldest country's, it's not gonna work in one of the youngest country's? Did the ban on beer and liquor work? Did witch hunting get rid of all the witch's? People you have to realize that the problem is the bad owner's and the media propaganda! witch hunting and pit banning is when ignorant people get together and decide to eradicate what they fear! examples: Hitler and the Jews, witch burnings, slavery, book burnings, decimation of Indian Tribes, just to name a few!! This is my opinion whether you agree or disagree that is my right! Jeff they are not ticking time bomb's, human's are ticking time bombs! Mary you might want to do a little research before commenting about "With proof" because there are alot of places lifting the ban because it don't work!!!
Posted by: Mary on Sep 22, 2008 at 07:40 AM
With proof (Council Bluffs and elsewhere) I don't know what Omaha is waiting for!!!!! These are not friendly pups; don't allow dangerous dogs.....PERIOD!
Posted by: Charlie on Sep 21, 2008 at 05:08 PM
To: Jamie. No I didn't hear about the Lab who bit the kid that had to get stitches, that is really sad. Fortunately, most dogs like labs, retrievers, etc. Bite then let go even though they have already causes the damage. Now a Pit, on average, bites and doesn't let go. This kid is lucky that it was a Lab and not a Pit, because if it were a Pit he most likely wouldn't have much of an arm left. Now don't everyone go jumping all over me about this, but according to Stats, this is the average for these types of dogs.
Posted by: Rebecca on Sep 21, 2008 at 02:55 PM
It's not the dogs that are to blame. When, as a society, we've allowed violent and abusive people to own animals, what do we think will happen? When we consider a breed ban, why not then ban teenage boys? Aren't they sprinkled into the news almost everyday for either a shooting or gang activity? Why not them? Why not ban their parents from parenting? Some PERSON needs to be held accountable. We cannot treat animals as less than human and then hold them accountable as humans. If we are so much more intelligent and so much better behaved, prove it. Be responsible. If you can't handle an animal or would rather not be bothered by monitoring that animal's activities, than don't. Its really not that hard to work out. Just stop it. If your animal is agressive, it is YOUR responsibility to protect not only the animal but the people around you. This woman should never again be allowed to care for animals. James...really?
Posted by: Charlie on Sep 21, 2008 at 10:23 AM
Give her the MAX! She was right there when the dog got off the leash and attacked that little girl and still she did nothing.
Posted by: James on Sep 21, 2008 at 12:20 AM
I think they should ban all animals inside the city limits, that would solve all the biting problems. You want an animal...move to the country!
Posted by: Jeff on Sep 19, 2008 at 06:34 PM
Jamie, I can tell you want to be heard, but you aren't listening. Read my comment earlier yesterday to understand why a pit bull ban is justified. When you say you've never had a problem with your dogs, you're missing the point. Statistically, pits are ticking time bombs. You might as well justify driving drunk, because you haven't had a problem YET! Never mind that over 15,000 people will be killed by drunk drivers this year. You say the idea of banning only pit bulls is not right. Would you say it’s wrong to ban only drunk drivers, that we should ban all drivers just to be "fair"? After all, other drivers cause deaths, too. You say you haven’t had a problem with your dogs. So, should we lift the ban on ALL drunk drivers? After all, some drunks don't cause problems and make it home safely.
Posted by: JaniMarie on Sep 19, 2008 at 01:50 PM
I hate to say it, but I do not believe in an all-breed ban or restrictions specifically aimed at one breed. Any dog can attack and be vicious. It's mostly due to the owners. I, unfortunately, had a Mini American Eskimo who became very aggressive. A cute little fluffy white puppy dog. I had to give him up because he bit a girl, who did nothing to provoke him - was only at our door. He was so protective of us that we had to lock him in the basement if anyone came to the house. It was due to poor breeding from what the vet said - probably inbreeding by a backyard breeder. Judge dogs on an individual basis and let the owners suffer the consequences. No dog should be running free at any time.
Posted by: A on Sep 19, 2008 at 12:43 PM
Excuse me but should we make everyone put a muzzle on their dog? I've been bitten by dogs considered gentle before, and just last month my counsin's 3 year old was attacked and nearly lost her eye to a dog who's size was on the "toy" end of the spectrum. Don't falsely believe a dog not capable of biting just because it's a poodle, if we do that we're only letting down our guard. I once heard that danger does not always wear a mask, and that dangerous people tend to look benevolent. It's the same with animals. All dogs should be leashed and muzzled not just the so called dangerous breeds. They're all carnivores with sharp teeth by the way.
Posted by: Anonymous on Sep 19, 2008 at 09:12 AM
A year in jail is not enough for what her mutt did.
Posted by: Jeff on Sep 19, 2008 at 03:57 AM
Jamie, I can tell you want to be heard, but you aren't listening. Read my comment earlier in the day to understand why a pit bull ban is justified. When you say you've never had a problem with your dogs, you're missing the point. Statistically, pits are ticking time bombs. You might as well justify driving drunk, because you haven't had a problem YET! Never mind that over 15,000 people will be killed by drunk drivers this year. Should we lift the ban on ALL drunk drivers, since some drunks make in home safely?
Posted by: Anonymous on Sep 18, 2008 at 10:06 PM
To "alicia", and everyone else who thinks you can train the fight out of a pitbull by being nice to it: hogwash. It is true that most OTHER breeds can be made mean by mistreatment, or can simply be ill-mannered due to lack of proper training. Pit bulls, on the other hand, are bred to be mean. Most breeds were developed by breeding specimens with good temperaments, so that the offspring would be naturally good-tempered dogs. The pit bull breed was developed the opposite way, because their purpose to the breeders was to be as mean as possible. So the meanest specimens were interbred, resulting in a breed that is naturally ill-tempered towards anyone but their master. To "llr" -- thanks for the chuckle! Maybe we do need more tigers!
Posted by: Jamie on Sep 18, 2008 at 10:04 PM
This whole idea of just banning pitbulls is not right. I own 2 pitbull mixes. They are wonderful dogs. If you have to muzzle them, then you should have to muzzle all dogs. I take my dogs to the puppy park on hefflinger drive. I take them every day to socialize them with people and dogs. I have never had a problem with them. I also have them vaccinated, licensed, and took them to obedience classes. So I am sick and tired of what people think. Go to the park. You will see. It is off 120th ish and blondo. P.S. a 6 year old kid got bit in my neighborhood 3 days ago. He got 12 stitches in his arm. ( black lab) Let me ask you a question... Did you hear about that on the news.... Didnt think so..
Posted by: Gee Todd on Sep 18, 2008 at 05:46 PM
Our society needs much more help than will be provided by a ban on pit bulls. How about a little perspective here. This lady needs to be punished as if she tore the poor babies scalp from her head herself. Dog owners might start being a little more careful if they were truly held responsible.
Posted by: B on Sep 18, 2008 at 04:34 PM
It all boils down to one thing: responsiblity. It is my responsibility to properly train and control my dog to make sure she is not a danger to people, animals, or herself. Just like in everything else, there are people that are responsible and people who aren't. Unfortunately you cannot legislate responsibility.
Posted by: mike on Sep 18, 2008 at 03:02 PM
jon what a stupid thing to say thats what wrong with people we have to many like jon to shoot to kill,stupid stupid i think i should not have suffer and my pets suffer like wear a muzzle, pay higher dog lic, we can not have people pay for other peoples mistakes i am sure the lady with the pitbull who attack did not want this to happen and if it was my dog i agree the the should be put down just if was any other breed that would attack a child and did what it did. there is a lot to be said what going on most of neg remarks are from people who dont have dogs and i cant see any one saying kill the breed shoot to kill thats just stupid all pits are not like that, stronger bite than other dogs i think we need stand up for are rights for us and are pets with out every thing going to cost us more more more money what next and then next
Posted by: Shawn on Sep 18, 2008 at 02:39 PM
There is a reason why drug dealers and gang bangers have pitbulls and rottweilers. Just listen to all of the rappers who talk about their pitbulls. You don't see people fighting pugs and poodles.
Posted by: erin on Sep 18, 2008 at 01:43 PM
I don't know why people have to have stupid mutts in the first place. All these pet owners seem to think that everyone loves their animals. I can't even go places to things like the Farmer's Market or Taste of Omaha without people thinking their stupid dogs are welcome, and most people still don't clean up after their animals even after the law was passed. I wish all of these animal lovers would get their priorities straight and understand that people come first, not animals. I want to be able to take my kids to the park without worrying about some dumb dog coming after them. (I got bit in the rear end once defending my kids from a dog.) If you have to have a dog, keep it at home unless it has to be walked. When walking, have a harness and muzzle, pay attention, and please clean up after them!
Posted by: Owner on Sep 18, 2008 at 12:48 PM
I have a American Staffordshire Terrier, which is the registered AKC of my dog. My American Staffordshire Terrier is registered, has all his shots and is neutered. When I take him for a walk, he has his collar and a harness for his leash. When people are walking on the same sidewalk and I see they are tense because of him, I have him sit until they pass by. When there are other dogs barking and carry on in their yard because we walk by, he just looks and keeps on going. I have trained and worked very hard to have my American Stafford Terrier behave and now I will be punished and my dog will be punished because of owners who will not take care of their dogs correctly and let them run loose. I will not put a muzzle on my dog for two reasons, 1) Its is cruel and unusual punishment for him, 2)As I am walking my dog some fool sees he has a muzzle on,that person might take a oppotunity to attack me because my dog will not be able to protect me with a muzzle on.
Posted by: alicia on Sep 18, 2008 at 11:55 AM
Dont you people understand its not just pit bulls that attack or bite!I've had german shepards attack other dogs and try for people while I was out walking them!Ive been attacked by a grey hound and a Rot!Seriously,its not the type of DOG its the OWNERS and how they raised and treated them!
Posted by: Steve on Sep 18, 2008 at 11:21 AM
Looks as if she has enough money to pay for all of those tattoos.
Posted by: Jon on Sep 18, 2008 at 10:34 AM
How about this? The Police see a pit unrestrained, they shoot to kill.
Posted by: Todd on Sep 18, 2008 at 09:55 AM
BAN PIT BULLS - SAVE OUR CHILDREN AND SOCIETY!
Posted by: Karen on Sep 18, 2008 at 09:48 AM
Bottom line is a child was seriously injured because of a very irresponsible pet owner who I for one think should be punished to the fullest extent of the law. Dogs are not human. I am sorry for all you pet lovers but we have to protect our children and our community. I know everyone hates the new ordinance and I know it will implement rules that seem unfair to responsible pet owners but unfortunately one person can ruin it for all and my biggest concern is protecting our population. That poor little girl did not deserve to be viciously attacked and if this is the only way of keeping these types of things from happening, I am all for it. There is a dog in our neighborhood that is leashed but has a very mean demeanor. When my son and I are on our nightly walks I avoid walking near that house. It is sad that a dog can ruin someone's enjoyment of their neighborhood. We have enough things to worry about when out. Vicious attacks by animals should not be one of them.
Posted by: Shawn on Sep 18, 2008 at 09:38 AM
Pitt Bulls and Rottweilers should be banned.
Posted by: SOB on Sep 18, 2008 at 09:35 AM
A couple of years ago my son was bit by a German shepard and no one did anything about this not the OPD or the NHS,he had to go to the Hosp,by Ambulance,and to top it off i had to pay for everything.imagine that!!!
Posted by: Dog Loather on Sep 18, 2008 at 09:22 AM
Give me a break, you are afraid of your neighbors 10 pound dog "charging the fence" Is it a baby pit bull, cause then I may be scared too. Sounds more like you are one of those dog lovers "my dog is so good it would never hurt anyone" people. What a wimp. At least with the 10 pound dog you can give it a little nudge w/ your foot to get it to go away. Please, a 10 pound dog charging the fence and yipping at you no less. You make me laugh.
Posted by: Sarah on Sep 18, 2008 at 09:12 AM
I am a PROUD APBT ownwer! I am in love with the breed and they are the only breed of dog I have ever owned. I have been drawn to the breed due to the fact that they are being killed off in cities that have bans in place. They are God's creatures also! Too many people are uneducated about the breed. My husband was walking our pit in our neighbor when a boxer jumped the fence and came after my pit. She was trying to hide behind my husband while the boxer was trying to get his mouth around her neck! She is a lover, not a fighter! She will run up and jump on you, not to bite you but to kiss you! It is unfair to us responsible owners to muzzle our dogs. Do you know how stressful that is for a dog? How about concentrating on the violence in Omaha and getting illegal guns off the street?
Posted by: Sara H on Sep 18, 2008 at 08:48 AM
I am the proud, responsible owner of a pit bull. I live outside of Denver where these dogs are currently banned, and I do not agree with it. My husband and I have raised our dog to be a family dog, she loves children and is great with other animals. It is those who abuse the privilege of owning these wonderful dogs who should be punished. Pit bulls are so loyal, this is why they fight. They are being loyal to what their owners want them to do. Banning these dogs would be a terrible solution to the problem. We see this in Denver now. The law obiding citizens who HAD pitbulls like mine, took their dogs to the humaine society when the ban took place... the scum bag, dog fighthing, drug dealers however, continue to posses these animals and use them for their entertainment and as weapons. Punish the deed, not the breed.
Posted by: llr on Sep 18, 2008 at 08:25 AM
Actually it's legal in Texas to own a Bengal tiger (and many other wild animals). I'd like to see a pit bull after a 500-lb Bengal got through with it.
Posted by: Anonymous on Sep 18, 2008 at 08:11 AM
Nick- How many children have died in a five gallon bucket this year? How many have been attacked by pit bulls? I would love to see those stats
Posted by: republicans4ACLU on Sep 18, 2008 at 05:35 AM
Ban the chiuaua too. they can be very annoying at times.
Posted by: ME on Sep 18, 2008 at 03:21 AM
You know what's really sad? Let's say we ban pitbulls--then someone will ask, "Why not this breed or that breed?" or say, "It's my constitutional right to have any dog I want." (that pursuit of happiness clause). I hate pitbulls. My neighbors used to have one and didn't register it or keep it on a leash. It came after my kids, my husband and the grandson of the lady who lived on the other side. It trashed our vegetable gardens and ran loose all the time. The owners kept saying what a good dog he was. No, he wasn't. He was a nuisance and I'm glad he's gone. I think if a pitbull causes damages or serious injuries, the owner should be held accountable and face fines, jail time and have to pay all the medical bills or replacement costs-period!
Posted by: Jeff on Sep 18, 2008 at 01:31 AM
While pits make up 3-4% of the dog population in the US, the CDC tells us pits account for one-half of the bites requiring a hospital visit, and one-third of the deaths by dog attack. Meanwhile, some people say, "If we're going to ban pit bulls, we need to ban other aggressive dogs." What are their criteria for "aggressive"? According to the CDC, no other dog even comes close to the injuries and deaths caused by pits. Any thinking, unbiased person can see a pit bull ban is sufficient. Those calling to ban more breeds are only trying to scare people and trick them into opposing the ban. Ban pit bulls. Legislate the others. That's enough.
Posted by: Anonymous on Sep 18, 2008 at 12:55 AM
Who cares what she looks like the courts should make he responsible for all the medical bills. Let her work two jobs for the rest of her life if that is what it takes.The medical bills should be sent directly to her.
Posted by: Jen on Sep 17, 2008 at 10:27 PM
Oh, get serious, all you people whining about how a little dog can also bite. Hmmm... let's see, using your logic, it should be legal to own a Bengal tiger unrestricted in your home in the city limits, with nothing more than a leash and collar. Because a 7-lb. tabby cat is legal to own, and like a tiger, a little tabby cat is a feline and can bite and scratch sometimes, too, if it's scared. Why should Bengal tigers and their owners be singled out and discriminated against... waah-waah-waah...
Posted by: Think it Through on Sep 17, 2008 at 10:23 PM
Here are a few more things to consider. 1) If you are only banning pits, then what happens when the vicious dog is a different breed? 2) You think the irresponsible owners of pits are going to take out more liability insurance, license their dogs, vaccinate, etc? No, only the responsible owners will and you still will have the same problem. 3) I can see it now, a 2 1/2 lb Yorkie in a muzzle because some ignorant person wants all dogs muzzled in public. It may be hard for the K-9 unit to do their job with OPD. 4) What do you do when uneducated people think your dog is a pit and it isn't? And just a FYI, the NHS does the best it can. If someone thinks it's an easy job or that they can do it better, apply. Hopefully the city council will think long and hard before they decide. Responsible owners of any breed shouldn't be punished because others aren't. All breeds have good and bad examples in them...just like the human race.
Posted by: Bill on Sep 17, 2008 at 10:12 PM
If people don't want a ban on the breed than pet owners need to be financially and morally responsible for whatever breed they choose to own. That little girl didn't ask to have her scalp ripped off but is the owner of the dog doing anything to help her get through all this. Probably not. I agree that although pit bulls are prone to violence that it is the breeds training or lack there of that is usually to blame for all the problems. I just don't see where the joy is of owning a pit bull....it is a ticking time bomb. There are alot of other good dogs out there.
Posted by: Erin on Sep 17, 2008 at 10:01 PM
I think that when people get a dog, they should be sure that they'll be able to control it. I used to have a large dog. (a Bouvier) and I had to forbid my mom from taking him outside on a leash. She could not control him. He'd pull away, and either drag her, or he'd yank the leash out of her hands. If you're going to get a dog, get one that you and everyone in your family can handle. AND make sure you and your dog take obedience classes...and dont just show up for one or two classes and quit. Attend as many obedience classes as you can. The more you train your dog, the easier it is to control it, and both you and your dog will be happy. It will know how to behave, and you'll know how to control it. I watched the video of the lady with the pitbull that attacked the girl, and it was obvious that she really had no control over her dog at all. She probably had no business having such a strong animal, if she wasnt prepared to know how to control and restrain it.
Posted by: To Proud pit owner on Sep 17, 2008 at 08:34 PM
Your very mention that all dog attacks came from North Omaha and South Omaha exposes the very racism that has caused this legislation to be accepted. Your closed minded bigoted attitude is the cause of your own problems. You will muzzle your dog,muzzle him and get insurance because of your own closed mind. Were you even at the council meeting to fight this? Don't judge us. Alot of us in both areas of town North and South have fought very hard against Breed Specific Legislation hard enough that we only facing muzzling and insurance requirements. You should thank all of us poor minorities for sticking up for you the past three months so that you aren't having to give up your dog to the NHS in a full ban. Just so you know I live in South Omaha, I might be lower middle class but I have heart and put every bit of my soul into this fight for everyone but mainly for the poor people. I have a milllion dollar policy, my dog is neutered,Microchipped, can be muzzled and has never been loose.
Posted by: Anonymous on Sep 17, 2008 at 07:33 PM
come on cece, look at that lady, do you think that lady has the funds to pay for medical bills.
Posted by: Me on Sep 17, 2008 at 07:15 PM
I agree with The Shepard Owner. All dogs can bite and will if provoked. If your dog has never worn a muzzle and 3 or 4 yrs into the dogs life the owner has to struggle to get one on the dog to take it out for a walk that is automatic stress on the dog.I have a large dog-no not a pitbul.But people naturally fear large dogs when there out in public!!Even if the dog is friendly.Obviously the City council wants everyone to own a fluffy little ankle biter!!Well not me-I love my big dog and she will not be wearinga muzzle outside.I pay for shots and licenses every year (and now the Humane Society only gives out one tag to last a lifetime-excuse me but when my dogs are playing in their fenced yard and one of them loses a tag and then is later run over by the mower-and we pay how much a year for 1 tag!!Get real. Lets just ban all dogs and make this game fair!!!Because thats what this is! I wonder what the city council owns for pets??
Posted by: kris on Sep 17, 2008 at 06:39 PM
banning pit bulls would be rediculous. the news hasent even shown a percent of all pit bulls. putting a full ban would only hurt the responsible good owners. its not gonna change anything. if you were to go to the hefflinger dog park at any given time there are pit bulls there all the time that are just as nice and playfull as the puppies there. there are millions of pits out there that wouldnt even be good watchdogs because they are so freindly. BLAME THE DEED NOT THE BREED
Posted by: tHe CloWn PrINce on Sep 17, 2008 at 06:21 PM
Hmmm. Something tells me she does NOT have liability insurance, so my guess is the toddler's surgeries, emphasis on the plural, are being paid for by the parents. If there were a ban this point would be moot. For all you pitbull owners I'll translate: If you ain't got no pitbull ya don't need no insurance.
Posted by: Nick on Sep 17, 2008 at 05:27 PM
Making pit bull owners muzzle their dogs is such an outrageous idea that its almost comical. Who will enforce this? Who will this affect? Do you really think that people who are bad pit bull owners will muzzle their dogs? Are you kidding me? They will probably either kill their dog so they don't have to deal with the new laws or just let them go free to roam the city! This is a joke! Then responsible pit bull owners like myself will have to deal with muzzling my completely harmless dog? A child is more likely to die from drowning in a 5-gallon bucket than from being attacked by a pit bull. That is a fact. So for overall public safety we aught to make everyone license, microchip and put a protective "muzzle" on their 5-gallon buckets. Ridiculous isn't it? Well its LESS ridiculous statistically for public safety than making me muzzle my dog. MORE lives would be saved from doing that than from muzzling pit bulls. Shouldn't the city council be focusing on REAL problems?
Posted by: cece on Sep 17, 2008 at 04:50 PM
Is the owner of this pit bull being held financially responsible for this attack? Make her pay and lock her up for a while. Stupid animal owners!
Posted by: German Shepherd owner on Sep 17, 2008 at 04:40 PM
I own a German Shepherd currently and have owned German Shepherds in the past. My dogs have always been trained, licensed, vaccinated and well cared for. None of them have ever been aggressive towards anyone. German shepherds have "biten people" but that does not mean the entire breed is bad. The little dogs bite more often than the big ones. I do not want to muzzle my shepherd to take him for a walk or to the pet store. I am also tired of the fees increasing and yet, I see not improvement with the way the Humane Society responds to calls. I would really like to see statistical data with how many dogs are in the city and how many dog bites actually occur. I also want to know how they are going to excatly determine an "aggressive call"-a call from a neighbor? How does the Humane Society know if that neighbor is just a jerk who doesn't like dogs.
Posted by: To Dog Loather on Sep 17, 2008 at 04:31 PM
Are you insane? Dogs under 10 lbs are just as apt to bite as a 100 lb dog. I have a neighbor who has a very little dog (don't know the breed) who constantly barks and charges the fence at myself, kids and my dogs.
Posted by: Ms.E on Sep 17, 2008 at 04:26 PM
This is just Crazy! Muzzle all dogs from a poodle to a pit when out in public. The cost of a muzzle and or putting an aminal to sleep are a heck of lot cheaper then medical bills. The bottom line is all dogs can and will bite. A little girl was almost killed because of a DOG. Isn't that enough! And it shouldn't have to take a situation of this extreme for us to wake up. I can only imagine the HORIFIC ORDEAL this family is expierencing. My thoughts and prayers are with you!
Posted by: Annoyed at annoyed on Sep 17, 2008 at 04:20 PM
Of course all dogs bite. Tell me you wouldn't rather be bit by a cocker spaniel than a pit bull.
Posted by: CJ on Sep 17, 2008 at 04:16 PM
It is sad that as a society we place a greater value on a pet than we do the well being of a child. I am torn on this issue as I have experience first hand the pain from both sides of the debate. My child was mauled by a dog (another owner) and has visible physical scars and invisible emotional scars as a result. The key word is accountability here, to assist her with moving on and coping we are involved with a rescue group and socialize our dogs (Rotties specifically). Both sides need to accept responsibility, i.e. parents teaching children to respect pets, that not all are friendly and to proceed with caution not running up to them. Dog owners need to accept that any dog at any given time will bite and you are responsible for the consequences of that no matter what your financial circumstances are. As a whole I think we need to get our priorities straight. Mine would always be my child or someone else's child over my pet.
Posted by: Lori on Sep 17, 2008 at 03:51 PM
To M: I doubt you are duck-hunting in public (or pheasant, or quail, or whatever). I later specified to muzzle all dogs in PUBLIC which I mean in parks, on sidewalks, anywhere the dog would come in contact with a stranger. One assumes you are hunting out in the country and the only "stranger danger" would be from your fellow hunters or your hunting compadres, neither of whom is apt to feel threatened by your retriever.
Posted by: Jen on Sep 17, 2008 at 03:35 PM
I personally feel that 90% of all pitbull owners have them because of shaddy dealing going on in there lives. Here's an idea...STOP doing things you shouldnt and get a calm dog, instead of feeling the need to protect your "business" with a pitbull.
Posted by: Sara on Sep 17, 2008 at 03:32 PM
They should ban dalmations. I had one bite me in the back of the leg, and my friend kept it still, and I hate the dog. I have never been bit by a dog, and now that I have, I am in full support of the ordiance.
Posted by: Kendahl on Sep 17, 2008 at 02:41 PM
If you are worried about being attacked by a dog while outdoors, carry a can of pepper spray and be ready to use it. The spray works very well and is available in handy sizes. For dealers, search the internet. Those who have concealed weapon permits already know what to do.
Posted by: DAO on Sep 17, 2008 at 02:38 PM
Denver, Las Vegas, are two cities that passed a pit bull ban. Incidents plumeted. Don't tell me pit bulls are the same as other dogs. They are a vicious breed. They hang on like a crocodile and won't let go. Come on people, no one needs a breed like that.
Posted by: Lori on Sep 17, 2008 at 02:00 PM
Well, if ALL dogs have the capability to bite, then ALL dogs should be muzzled in public. There are in fact muzzles that allow the dog to breathe/pant. So, I say again, MUZZLE ALL DOGS IN PUBLIC!
Posted by: Anonymous on Sep 17, 2008 at 12:55 PM
The ordinance should also read that the dog owner will be held financially for all injuries resulting a unprovocted attack off the owners property some one should not have to go to civil court to get a judgement from someone in that kind of situation.
Posted by: Dog Loather on Sep 17, 2008 at 12:50 PM
It's funny b/c the dog that bit the little girl at one time was "a dog that wouldn't hurt anybody" Everybody says this but sure they all start off w/ a clean record but something always happens and they just snap (as you dog people say). These are ANIMALS, nobody can predict their next move at any time. Get with it people, I say ban all dogs for that matter. ok maybe the ones under 10 pounds can stay around.
Posted by: g on Sep 17, 2008 at 11:32 AM
If they only do pit bulls what about the other breeds of dogs that are agressive? They just going to ban each breed 1 at a time costing taxpayers money to do this. Different breed different incident ban that breed?? Stupid to me but who am I to say.
Posted by: rose on Sep 17, 2008 at 11:24 AM
you cant force people to muzzle there dogs it not fare my dogs have done notjing wrongli agree lets ban drinking it kill more and hurts more famolys then others it not a fair way to things to please other raise pet licsence and have people spend more money on there pets than they should i dont know what are world is coming to
Posted by: annoyed on Sep 17, 2008 at 11:03 AM
ALL DOGS BITE RATHER THEY ARE BIG OR SMALL! PITT BULLS are not the only dangerous dog. ALL dogs can be dangerous. I can't believe how ignorant people are.
Posted by: Hey Genius on Sep 17, 2008 at 10:51 AM
I do not believe it should be a leash, I believe it should be a harness." _________________________ You still use a leash with a harness. It's just connected to the harness and not the collar.
Posted by: Barb on Sep 17, 2008 at 10:26 AM
To Annonymous: You have 3 dogs. Ok. Did you have them all licensed and vacinated? If not then you should not own an animal. Owing dogs can be like owning a home. If you cannot afford the insurance,license, shots,etc.then you have no business owning a dog, let alone 3 of them. If your yard is fenced, why do you have to have them chained up? You should check with your insurance company and see if your liability insurance covers the dogs if they should ever bite someone.
Posted by: M on Sep 17, 2008 at 10:04 AM
Lori, should a muzzle be put on "all dogs all the time when outdoors" it would be pretty difficult for my lab to retrieve when we are hunting. Anyone who supports a law that is essentially racism towards dogs (breedism I guess would fit) as opposed to laws that hold people accountable is an idiot. I'm not some tree-hugging PETA loving doofus, but I do think animals should be taken care of properly and it is most definitely the responsibility of those who chose to take in an animal as a pet to care for that animal, and caring for an animal involves training and socializing the animal. I would loosely compare it to having kids, but we still haven't gotten people to care for their kids yet.
Posted by: Crazydoglady on Sep 17, 2008 at 09:58 AM
As written, I have no problem with the ordinance. They are not banning a breed or restricting their new rules to one breed. What they are doing is telling people that if their dog - pit bull, golden retriever, chihuahua, whatever, behaves in a manner which renders it dangerous or potentially dangerous, it needs to be muzzled whenever it might come into contact with the public. I've met some very nice, sweet pit bulls. I've met some not so nice ones. I've met some aggressive golden retrievers. I've seen some little rat terriers that have scared me to death. Bottom line - if you are not capable of or interested in properly training and caring for your dog, you will create a potentially dangerous dog. They're not born that way. And if you are not capable of or interested in properly training and caring for your dog but you are foolish enough to have one anyway, it is going to be expensive and inconvenient for you to keep it. I see no problem with that.
Posted by: Linda on Sep 17, 2008 at 09:44 AM
I cannot fault that little girls mom for wanting an ordinance...that precious little girl could have been killed...then what???? Too much, too little, too late. Let a dog attack one of my grandsons like that....I would kill him immediately...& I would like to see anyone stand in my way....who knows what could happen to them also!!!!!!
Posted by: Anonymous on Sep 17, 2008 at 09:40 AM
EVERYONE....& I mean EVERYONE that has a dog period should have thier dogs licensed & vaccinated or they should not own a dog...period....I am on Social Security & disability.... I have 3 dogs....& a cat....I do them 1 at a time, otherwise I would not be able to do it either...I have a Rottweiller, a chow & a rat terrier...they all have thier vaccinations & thier tags....they get thier heartworm medicine every month & they get treated with Frontline Plus so they don't infest my house with fleas....it can be done. It's called being responsible. If I can do it, anyone can do it.
Posted by: Anonymous on Sep 17, 2008 at 09:32 AM
That's ridiculous to say every pit bull will fight. My friend has a pit bull and she has never once even growled at any of his friends. So I think it should be taken into consideration the IDIOTS that own the pit bulls that fight, because trust me, not all of them do.
Posted by: b on Sep 17, 2008 at 09:11 AM
I agree with pure ignorance - you can't afford licensing fees, etc. but yet you chose to have not one but THREE dogs?!?! You CERTAINLY show your ignorance!
Posted by: Chris on Sep 17, 2008 at 02:50 AM
Dear pure ignorance, I am thinking about getting a dog, but I worry that there might be a time in my life I can't afford a license and insurance. You ranted against anonymous that he should have, in hindsight, been able to predict the current economy AND the ungodly increase in license fees. Since your view of hindsight implies you can tell the future, please predict the economic conditions, license fees, and insurance fees for the next 20 years, so I'll know if I should get a dog. Be specific. I don't want any reason to think you're a fraud merely spouting off your unfounded opinions.
Posted by: Francis on Sep 16, 2008 at 11:31 PM
To bad we can't ban stupid owners of pitt bulls. Tough, ingorant drug dealers. The dog makes them tough. Why would you have one if you weren't doing something illegal?
Posted by: David James on Sep 16, 2008 at 10:41 PM
Cant help but to notice its the cowards who want to carry a concealed weapon and kill a dog who sign their names as anonymous.
Posted by: Dave on Sep 16, 2008 at 10:33 PM
Actually, one can put a dog in the holding cells in the humane society's lobby after hours at no cost. Also as you may have heard on the news lately with the safe haven law now on the books one can also give up a child to the state at no cost and completely anonymously
Posted by: Proud Pit owner on Sep 16, 2008 at 09:45 PM
You know what i feel sorry for that little girl that got attacked, but the owners shouldnt have had the dog tied in the yard. Be responsible owners and have a privacy fence, and put your dog in the yard. I own a 4 year old pit and have had him since he was 10 months old we rescued him from a drug dealer, i also have a two month old daughter and my biggest concern about my dog is his tail hitting her. I also have a lab mix and i trust the pit bull more than her. Wake up people and look at what areas these attacks are comming from and look at what kind of owners they are. I live in West O with a pit do you ever hear about pit bull attacks in West O?? NO YOU DONT!! They are either North or South. The worst thing my dog has ever done is licked faces!!! Woo thats scary. I dont think its fair that i have to muzzle my dog if he is harnesed for a walk then people will automatically think that he is vicous, when he is the exact opposite. This whole thing just isnt fair to responsible owners!
Posted by: John on Sep 16, 2008 at 09:45 PM
To 'pure ignorance'. If anyone is ignorant it's you. When 'anonymous' got their dogs all these new fees did not exist. Now because people are scared of a few bad dogs ALL pet owners must suffer (and it is just a tiny fraction of all the pit bulls in Omaha, check the numbers yourself). Problem is this ordinance is too broad, it punishes responsible owners who have trained their pets well. Another problem I have with this ordinance is where will it end? If you ban one breed because it causes the most bites then the next year another bread is on the top of the list. Do you then ban that breed? Remember the German Shepherd was on top of the list for some time so should that breed be banned as well?
Posted by: Muzzle on Sep 16, 2008 at 09:29 PM
Put the muzzle on Fahey for coming up with a plan that makes no sense. Just ban the dogs, and anyone that has one is guilty of a felony. Problem solved.
Posted by: DogOwner on Sep 16, 2008 at 09:27 PM
I don't have a pit bull or a dangerous dog and I refuse to pay higher fees to license my dog to cover the cost of any new ordinance. Pit Bull owners should have to pay a $1000/yr fee to have one. The rest of us shouldn't have to pay anything. Fahey's first plan was just plain STUPID. This one isn't much better.
Posted by: Pet Owner on Sep 16, 2008 at 09:22 PM
I have a chow/rott mix (purchased through the humane society 6 years ago). I also have a 10 week old German Shepard Puppy-who will be trained just I have trained all my dogs with socialization and behavior. I am a responsible owner and I don't feel it is necessary to muzzle my dogs to take them for a walk. I am also not impressed with the fact that a neighbor can call and say that I have an aggressive dog and their word will be good enough to warrant a fine and a strike. Many years ago, when I was a teen-my mother owned a white German Shepard and the neighbor did not like her and called the humane society claiming that she barked too much. Guess what-he was making her bark, he was in his back yard throwing stuff at her and teasing her, hence causing her to bark. We all have neighbors who lie and I don't think one person should have that power-if the humane society is going to enforce this then they need to thoroughly investigate the complaint before making any judgement.
Posted by: cathy on Sep 16, 2008 at 08:49 PM
What is really the issue in all this talking is the fact this breed of dog is vicious by nature. You can raise your dog as loving as you wish, but when instincts kick in, that loving care you've given will be lost for seconds while they do what their nature tells them to do. These are animals. To harbor a dog like this in the diguise as a pet is foolish and irresponsible. You can never really trust the nature of this dog. Until someone of importance is hurt by this dog, nothing will ever change. People who own these dogs would sing another tune if their dog turned on them.
Posted by: Keith on Sep 16, 2008 at 08:28 PM
One of the arguments is that all dogs should be muzzled. So, how come the only dog that is causing all the trouble is a Pit Bull? I haven't seen anything in the news about any type of other dog doing harm. Not even a Doberman?
Posted by: John on Sep 16, 2008 at 08:27 PM
The statement by Nebraska Humane Society President Judy Varner stating "In researching a total ban, the most glaring problem with a total ban is that comparable cities with bans are still having problem with pit bulls" is at best marginally true. It would be more accurate to say that similar bans have not completely eliminated the problem of pit bull attacks. None the less it has been conceded that pit bulls present a special problem among dogs. Part of that problem being that pit bulls are bred for the sole purpose of attacking and killing what they attack. The intentions and mood of a dog can be read through the dogs facial expression. There are different facial expressions for playfullness, submission, aggression, fear. The pit bull is an exception to this rule. A pit bull will attack with the same smile that it has when it's owner rubs it's belly. This is just one of the reasons pit bulls are much less predictable then other dogs.
Posted by: John on Sep 16, 2008 at 07:21 PM
One problem with a ban of pit bulls would be that not everyone can properly identify a pit bull. What happens if there is a ban and I report a neighbor that I think has a pit bull but it's not. responsible owners are a better option.
Posted by: Howard on Sep 16, 2008 at 06:12 PM
So Anonymous does not want to give their name, who wants to pay more money in these times of economic crisis for something that frankly we have not even seen all the numbers on. How many people have been attacked by animals this year based on how many pets are in the city of Omaha. Raising the fees and adding these restrictions is one way of taking control of OUR pets and placing them into someone elses hands. Since the City Council cannot ban our beloved Pit Bulls they are trying to go the around about way of gaining more control in lieu of harder laws to come that will not allow anybody to own Pit Bulls. All dogs are a reflection of their owners and Pit Bull owners love their dogs just as much as any other animal lover, furthermore Anonymous what does kids have to do with any of this? Keep the issues clear and to the point. Pets are our companions and it should not be made any harder for us to own them. I implore the City Council not to make a rushed decision on this matter.
Posted by: pure ignorance on Sep 16, 2008 at 05:41 PM
TO ANONYMOUS: If you are unable to pay for licensing fees, obedience classes, or insurance, then you NEVER should have decided to become a pet owner. How are you even going to be able to pay for the surrender fee per animal??? I hope you don't have children because it costs even more money to care for children. When it becomes too expensive to be a parent are you going to "surrender" them as well? If you don't have the money, don't take on these responsibilities!!
Posted by: citizen on Sep 16, 2008 at 04:21 PM
Bottom line is the City, OPD and Ne Humane Society don't give a rat terrier's ^(*%_ about anybody. Any law would just be ignored by OPD and NHS unless they are personally affected, ie; the cops can shoot to protect themselves and NHS has tools to protect themselves, but the common person cannot do a thing, legally, to protect themselves.
Posted by: anonymous on Sep 16, 2008 at 03:54 PM
I wonder is the Humane society ready for all the people like my self that will be surrendering these dogs into there facility, are they ready to put down hundreds of dogs? Because I will not pay 50.oo per dog to liscense them and sometimes I do chain up my dogs, so that they can run around my fenced yard instead of being locked in a 4x4 kennel all day, and I cant afford to take classes for me or my dog, or the 100000 in insurance and god forbid they get lose or harm anyone I definitely cant afford that so I will be given my 3 dogs, which are all pit mixes except one to the Humane Society. I wonder is that considered cruel? Well they are making me do it with these new laws.
Posted by: Ex-Brit on Sep 16, 2008 at 03:43 PM
Finally...the council has this one right! It is the owner's lack of responsibility and training that makes a bad dog. As the owner and breeder of Rottweilers, I have no problem muzzling my dogs. They have never bit anyone and are AKC Canine Good Citizens, and we are happy to obey the law if passed. Hopefully this will make for better dogs in the Omaha community. I have seen a lot of good dogs wasted through bad or no training by owners. My other pet peeve, parents who don't teach their children responsible and humane pet handling...that is a bite just waiting to occur!
Posted by: JIM on Sep 16, 2008 at 03:29 PM
Be careful I had a neighbor lie about a dog biting his wife. He reported that it happened at night when we were asleep and the dogs in the house. He reported it 2 days after my dog got out of a gate. I beleive he open the gate while I was at work and the dogs in the house. Animal control and the police came at 11 pm and gave me 5 $500 tickets. I denied it happened went to court and they wanted to kill my dog and jail me for three years. The wife was in court and came up to asked why I was there. She did not even know her husband had made the claim. No proof of a dog bite was given Both my dog and I are on 2 years probation based on a lie. The procecuter only wants convictions and does not care about the truth or animal rights The legal system is flawed. This law will make it worse. Have proof of a violation like eveything else. Animal control said they do not need proof they only need to take the respondents word for the truth. That was quoted by an aminal control officer
Posted by: Patty on Sep 16, 2008 at 03:26 PM
Wow, after reading everthing I am just interjecting that some of this is "human" fault. Mistreating these animals, including teaching them to fight is something humans have done. We need to do somthing about the human issue too and this ordinance has some reference to that. I dont beleive that banning one breed will stop the problem, putting a strict ordinance out on all dogs in public area's and not allowing people to have dogs "living" outside, if you call that living, and making sure that we as the owners are responsible will make a huge impact on this issue. Remember the boy that got bit on the nose wasnt bitten by a pitt bull, and the dog who inflicts the most bites is actually a relatively small dog, the cocker spaniel
Posted by: cece on Sep 16, 2008 at 03:23 PM
I am conflicted about the ban. I am a dog lover and as a parent to two dogs, I am responsible for them. This poor child was attacked by dog whose owner was there. They can't dispute it. Are the owners of such animals being held responsible for the costs (medical, emotional)of these incidents? If an owner is going to say, 'not my dog-he would never do that' or 'he must have been wound up by the sound of the wagon wheel' then I say we let them put their money and their freedom where their mouth is. Maybe they should be brought up on assult charges. People, don't tie your animals up in the backyard and poke sticks at them and expect them not to be aggressive. Dog owning 101.
Posted by: fear everything on Sep 16, 2008 at 03:18 PM
OMG! People are getting injured from some of these dogs, Let ban them all! People are dying from drunk drivers, Lets ban all alcohol! Lets ban all Cars! People are dying from gunshots! Lets ban all guns! People are dying from obesity. Lets ban all fast food! People are spending their savings at casinos. Lets ban all gambling!..hummmm..or maybe lets just address the irresponsible people who are causing these issues.
Posted by: llr on Sep 16, 2008 at 03:16 PM
Hey, AR, ever heard the old saying "A few rotten apples spoil the whole bushel"!? You say your dogs haven't done anything wrong; I say it's easier to pass an ordinace on all dogs than just some. It is a LOT easier to demand all dog owners muzzle their dogs in public, or use a specific leash, etc. than to adopt a "wait and see" attitude to try and catch the dogs who DO bite.
Posted by: FarmBoy on Sep 16, 2008 at 03:13 PM
This is just what Omaha should be concerned with. After all, only 4 shootings in 16 hours is much LESS important than owners who can;'t care for their dogs. Repeat--the OWNERS - not the dogs. Education must have missed a few urbanites (lm, you are an exception to the postings!)!
Posted by: Anonymous on Sep 16, 2008 at 03:08 PM
That's why I am glad we have the concealed weapon law, so dogs that attack people can be shot immediately.
Posted by: M on Sep 16, 2008 at 03:01 PM
What can we (Omaha citizens) do to show we want a ban, not just "debate parts of an ordinance that doesn't ban pit bulls but aims to stop all dog bites"???
Posted by: acp on Sep 16, 2008 at 02:49 PM
You know, it's funny. My mother owns a mixed pit bull/lab. And she owns another dog that was a rescue animal from Hurricane Katrina. The pit bull came from an abusive home and was almost put down at the Humane Society. The other night we they were on a walk a Golden Retriever came out and tried attacking the rescue dog. Now if this had been a pit bull the media would have had a hay day with this story. Now honestly people, are we dumb enough to believe that the only dog attacks come from pit bulls? Give me a break. Put the people down that breed the dogs to be aggressive, don't punish innocent owners and dogs.
Posted by: To B on Sep 16, 2008 at 02:45 PM
It would appear that you do not have a dog to make a statement to "muzzle all dogs all the time". The breed of the animal does not indicate aggressive behavior. I have dogs whom I have properly trained (through a professional mind you) who are not aggressive to people or other animals. To say that I need to muzzle them is in my sense cruel to my pets. Now, should I ever have an indication that my dog was acting aggressive, I would take the proper steps to ensure the safety of those in public. It really comes down to the owners being responsible for their pets. The humane society think that they are so great, so answer me this-I have a neighbor who in the past 6 years have gone through at least 10 dogs-non who are licensed, cared for, left outside and I have called and yet there is never a response. The humane society can't even respond to my several calls regarding this issue, so how are they going to enforce the 3 strike rule???? People who have pets--BE RESPONSIBLE!
Posted by: AR on Sep 16, 2008 at 02:34 PM
I believe this should NOT be on all dogs. How can you tell if a dog is aggressive or not? Why should i have to put a muzzle on my dog, when he has done nothing wrong. I have 2 Boxers, and they are not agressive. This should be only towards certain breeds, then come out witha list of dogs that must have a muzzle. And yes owners shoudl take responsobility of there dogs.
Posted by: Kevi n on Sep 16, 2008 at 02:33 PM
For Bob on Sep 16, 2008 at 12:15 PM I used to think that the Humane Society had no input until this issue of increasing the licensing fees came up. Knowing I'd get a quicker answer from them, I emailed them rather than the city. Anyway, the Humane Society gets paid by the city for animal control, just like Deffenbaugh gets paid to pick up trash. So that is where the pet license fee goes. So in effect as a city contractor, they can have input into how the process needs to be run, and how much more it will cost; hence the increase in the license fees. The HS is againse a ban on just pit bulls, as their spokes people have said many times.
Posted by: Howard on Sep 16, 2008 at 02:14 PM
I am very sorry that this lady and daughter was attacked but that does not allow to have Pit bulls and Pit Bulls only to be muzzled. All dogs or no dogs should be muzzled. When I was a kid I was chased by all dogs least among all Pit Bulls. The ordinance needs to be as loose and all inclusive as possible putting the owness on the owner and not the animal. My Pit Bull is a very friendly loveable protector of my family and I would not trade him for the world and he should not be sentenced to a life of restrictions and unfair treatment because the media sensationalizes Pit bull attacks and not "dog" attacks! The comments below are completely ridiculous written by people who probably have no expertise what so ever about Pit Bulls or any dogs. All I want to see is a fair interpretation of the law that does not single out one class or breed of animals!
Posted by: lm on Sep 16, 2008 at 01:37 PM
I get so tired of people shouting "He's such a sweet dog and he's never hurt anyone." No one is able to predict animal behavior 100%...ever. Owners need to be responsible for ALL DOG BREEDS. Big or small a bite is a bite and these animals count on their humans to keep them safe. Remember if a dog attacks someone it's the dog that ALWAYS loses (and gets put down). WATCH YOUR ANIMALS PEOPLE!
Posted by: Mae on Sep 16, 2008 at 12:55 PM
Get a spine Omaha, and ban them. Denver banned pit bulls years ago. Honestly how many more little kids and old folks and everyone in between needs to get attacked before you do something?
Posted by: kd on Sep 16, 2008 at 12:47 PM
It is obvious that not all dogs are as aggresive as others. The pit Bulls have been the issue time and again in all the recent cases. They needed to be outlawed in Omaha not this stupid ordinance. How does Fahey sleep at night. A baby's scalp was ripped off by a pitbull!! A mother was attacked. This isnt a nice dog and this problem needs tougher action than what they are considering.
Posted by: Anna on Sep 16, 2008 at 12:43 PM
This should be expanded to include other aggressive breeds.
Posted by: Bob on Sep 16, 2008 at 12:15 PM
This whole thing is about pit bulls, not about what the Human Society thinks they want. Human Society has no business telling the city what to do. Omaha and other citys need just to ban pit bulls.
Posted by: Lori on Sep 16, 2008 at 11:58 AM
Muzzles for ALL dogs at ALL times they are outdoors!
Posted by: b on Sep 16, 2008 at 11:02 AM
Ban the dogs and the owners
AP Online Network
YOU CAST - YOUR PICS N VIDEOS
Media Partners