Slog News & Arts

Line Out

Music & Nightlife

« Critical Mass Roundup | Reading Tonight »

Monday, July 28, 2008

He Must Have Provoked That Dog Somehow

posted by on July 28 at 10:13 AM

Authorities in Van Buren County said a pit bull severely mauled a 10-year-old on Saturday, forcing doctors to amputate the boy’s right arm above the elbow….

Walker said the boy’s parents traveled to Indiana and left the boy in the care of his 23-year-old brother. Walker said the brother went to the bank, leaving the boy alone with the 2-year-old male pit bull terrier.

RSS icon Comments


Again Ban Savage..or is it Pitler these days? How come you failed to report on the Mauling that ended in DEATH for 1 year old child in Erie Penn on July 25th?

Oh..that's's because an ENGLISH SHEEPDOG did the killing. It'd be hard to mistake that shaggy thing for a pit bull, wouldn't it?

It's always more fun to hit the easy targets, especially when others have paved the way to make your breedist/racist campaign easier. Just ask Stalin or Hiltler or Mao..Milosoviech, Gadhafi or Ratko Mladic.

And before you tell me how inappropriate it is to compare humans and dogs, lets remember that YOU compared dogs and guns.(Huh?) Humans and dogs are Far more closely related as they are both animals with personalities, heartbeats and LIVES.

Get over your hang up. Pit bulls, like all dogs make great pets in good hands.

Posted by Julie Russell | July 28, 2008 10:32 AM

Dan Savage being selective in his reporting? That is so shocking to even think......

Posted by Hello, | July 28, 2008 10:35 AM

well, the kid probably DID provoke the dog - but it could have been something as provocative as trying to pick up a dropped cookie before the pit got to it.

bottom line: you can't leave kids under 12 alone without adult supervision. 2nd degree manslaughter charges for the 23 year old brother.

Posted by max solomon | July 28, 2008 10:37 AM

Wait a minute, are people seriously comparing Dan Savage to Hitler?

WHOOSH goes the credibility.

Posted by Nick | July 28, 2008 10:42 AM

Not entirely sure how I feel about this issue, but the minute you drag out the Hitler comparison, you lose.

Posted by LDP | July 28, 2008 10:43 AM

Racist/Breedist? Breedist? Seriously? Breedist?

I guess it makes some kind of sense since dog breeds are much closer to successful eugenics that Hitler ever got in his wildest dreams. He wanted to breed an Aryan superman who would make slaves of the rest of the inferior races on earth.

While dog breeders have ACTUALLY SUCCEEDED in breeding aggressive, dangerous dogs that are specifically genetically engineered for fighting. There may be good dogs among that bunch, but come on, Pits, Dobermans, Rottweilers, Shepards, etc. have EARNED their reputations.

Posted by Westside forever | July 28, 2008 10:51 AM

What is happening in Seattle is that a small group of people calling themselves (formerly FDAFB) are trying to eliminate pit bulls in Seattle.

While I have no idea if Dan is or is not affiliated with this group, his postings add fuel to this heated topic.

The comparison to others who have attempted to eliminate races if to stress that this is a problem that can and will result in DEATH for dogs if it is not stopped. While it may seem rash to draw these comparisons,I feel it is necessary.

We can theorize on SLOG about dogs all day.The reality is that thousands of innocent dogs will be killed if no one speaks for them. Since Dan is speaking against them, I am obligated to speak FOR them.

Posted by Julie Russell | July 28, 2008 10:56 AM

go Dan - need to outlaw and shoot all the pits

and all the jabber from the pet slaves - they have lost their minds

any excuse will do for the killer dogs - sickening

Posted by Zak | July 28, 2008 10:59 AM

#7 - bring a dozen to your bedroom

Posted by John | July 28, 2008 11:01 AM

hey dan- when your "research" consists of googling "pit bull attack" and hastily posting any recent items to the slog, you come off as more of a knee-jerky curmudgeon than a credible writer.

Posted this about a month ago, just wanted to say thanks for continuing to prove my point, Dan! You're a sweetheart.

Posted by MB | July 28, 2008 11:01 AM

Did you hear about the kid who bit the pitbull?

Posted by Mahtli69 | July 28, 2008 11:04 AM

above - For a blog posting - Slog - Dan is supposed to do a years research?

You need to read science review mags, not Slog.

Blogs are fast, fluid, daily and should provoke - Dan does it well.

You just like killer dogs, admit it.

Posted by John | July 28, 2008 11:06 AM


I don't think that Dan is too concerned about what we think of him as a "journalist". Everybody already knows he's a cranky old man in an middle-aged-hipster-fag suit. Seems to be working out ok for him.

Dan: you win. You were right. Thank you so much for enlightening the Slog on this issue. Were there a god, I would ask him to kindly bless you.

Now, STFU!

Posted by violet_dagrinder | July 28, 2008 11:11 AM

A poodle and a jack russel killed a cat last week in my town.

That is all.

Posted by Jenny P | July 28, 2008 11:12 AM

If a black person were to murder someone, does that mean all black people are vicious murderers? No, and the same rule applies to dogs, certain dogs are fucked in the head. It's purely on a case-by-case basis.

Posted by Jocie | July 28, 2008 11:18 AM

@10, maybe the most salient point in all this is that it's so DAMN EASY to find examples of pit bull attacks, as you point out. The plenitude of these attacks make me give Dan the sympathetic ear.

Posted by Jubilation T. Cornball | July 28, 2008 11:25 AM

I don't recall Dan ever saying he wanted to kill all pit bulls (maybe he did, I can't live on this blog), but my understanding of the issue is to keep dangerous animals out of crowded cities - where really, what medium to large size dog could be happy in, and leave them out in the country, or in a large open area, where the dog will be happier, and far less likely to maim or kill a passing neighbour. Pit bulls may be wonderful dogs, but they are not indoor pets or lap dogs, or city dogs. They do not make good family pets.

Posted by Charm | July 28, 2008 11:50 AM

He must have provoked HIM somehow.

But, no, seriously, people > dogs. We kill animals all the time to eat them, but people get all uppity when those animals are "pets." I should ask my Korean roommates if pit bulls are good eating.

Posted by Mr. Joshua | July 28, 2008 11:50 AM

#15: Again, comparing black people to dog breeds is itself extremely racist.

To you and Julie "breedist" Russell: It's fine to oppose breed bans and all, but please understand that the sorts of analogies you are making are overreaching and highly insulting. Also, if you really want to be taken seriously from an ethical standpoint, instead of just shrugging your shoulders at every account of another fatal dog attack on a child, perhaps you might suggest your plan for how to address such situations. Saying that these are all instances of irresponsible dog owners and leaving it at that comes off as saying "Oh well, I guess a certain amount of people have to be maimed or killed by dogs in order to protect my right to have whatever sort of pet I want."

Breed bans happen when enough of these stories stack up to cause public outrage. If you don't like that solution, start thinking up better solutions, because stories like this show no sign of stopping and sooner or later one of these stories will garner enough public concern to prompt action. For good or ill, we live in a society that responds to perceived risk (especially to children) with legislation.

Posted by flamingbanjo | July 28, 2008 11:54 AM

@15: certain dogs will be "fucked in the head" if these factors are present, nos. 1 & 2 being the most important:

1. intact genitals
2. negligent owners
3. breed was created for any of the following purposes:
a. pit fighting
b. bull baiting
c. ratting
d. guarding sheep (not herding)

Posted by max solomon | July 28, 2008 12:00 PM

At 19: There are MANY alternatives to breed bans. Some include
1)Stricter leash laws
2)Harsher Penalties for animal abuse
3)Outlawing chaining/tethering of dogs
4)Dangerous Dog Laws that are Breed neutral and focus on individual dogs that have committed acts of aggression (see Pierce County's current Policy Yay Ladenberg!)
5)Mandatory Sterlilization for all dogs NOT being used for breeding
6)Harsher laws on Backyard Breeding
7)Accessability to Spay/neuter clinics for those in lower socio-ecomoic areas

These are only a few ideas...BSL is a LAZY knee jerk reaction to a problem that is NOT about Breed.

Posted by Julie Russell | July 28, 2008 1:30 PM

hee hee ecomonic

Posted by Julie Russell | July 28, 2008 1:32 PM

A friend just sent me a link to ANOTHER dog mauling that ended in death.Yesterday.

Tulsa, OK. 2 month old KILLED by a young Labrador or a PUG.Both dogs were there and the parents were home but not watching the child. problem or human problem?

Posted by Julie Russell | July 28, 2008 2:38 PM

@22: That's "ecomoic."
@21: I agree completely. Getting hysterical is only going to result in an ineffective breed ban, it's not going to get to the root cause: owner responsibility. Proper training, socialization, sterilization, and adequate living conditions for dogs are the first steps to preventing these attacks.

Posted by Lavode | August 4, 2008 4:55 PM

Comments Closed

Comments are closed on this post.