Got bit by a dog today while walking home from breakfast. Fortunately I was wearing combat boots so my foot only got a bit crushed instead of torn up... but, "Ow!!!" nonetheless.
Some dark beefy dog just comes running down somebody's driveway barking and carrying on like I just kicked its puppy or something... "Easy easy easy!" I cried, but to no avail.
CHOMP!!!
Ow ow ow...
Wasn't too awful bad until I started walking on it... then it really started killing me. Hobbled and limped the rest of the way home after that. Stairs really suck sometimes. Ow... step... ow... step... ow...
I don't have the heart to call animal control about it, but god damn that was a bit unnerving. And it wasn't all that far away from a couple schools where kids walk by on their way to and from.
From the local municipal code:
Sec. 7-1. Definitions.
The following words and phrases, when used in this chapter, shall have the meanings respectively ascribed to them:
...
(5) Dangerous animal shall mean any individual animal which when either unmuzzled, unleashed, or unattended by its owner, or a member of the owner's family, in a vicious or terrorizing manner, approaches any person in an apparent attitude of attack upon streets, sidewalks, or any other public place.
...
(12) Vicious animal means:a. Any individual animal that, unprovoked, inflicts bites or attacks a human being or other animal either on public or private property; or
b. Any individual animal with a known propensity, tendency or disposition to attack, without provocation, to cause injury or to otherwise endanger the safety of human beings or domestic animals; or
c. Any individual animal that has as a trait or characteristic and a generally known reputation for being vicious or dangerous, or for making unprovoked attacks upon human beings or other animals, unless handled in a particular manner or with special equipment; or
d. Any individual animal which attacks a human being or domestic animal without provocation; or
e. Any individual animal which has been found to be a "dangerous animal" upon two (2) separate occasions; or
f. Any individual animal that has been trained as an attack or guard dog and is found off the owner's property; or
g. Any individual animal that has been trained for fighting or is owned, kept or used for the purpose of fighting.(C.B. 97-33, § 1, 3-4-97; C.B. No. 2005-134, § 1, 5-17-05)
Cross references: Definitions and rules of construction generally, § 1-3.Sec. 7-6. Keeping of dangerous animals.
(a) No person shall keep or harbor any dangerous animal in violation of this section within the City. Such animals are hereby declared nuisances and are subject to impoundment.
(b) All owners or keepers of dogs found to be dangerous must post in clear view at all times, and in the most conspicuous or prominent point of entry to the premises, a sign indicating dangerous dog on the premises. Such sign shall be at least eight and one-half (8 1/2) inches by eleven (11) inches in size, and shall contain in words and pictures, a clear indication that a dangerous dog is on the premises. Signs meeting the requirements of this paragraph shall be made available at the Champaign Police Department for purchase by the public for a fee of five dollars ($5.00).
(c) All dogs found to be dangerous must be controlled by a leash whenever the dog is not contained within an enclosed area or structure located on the owner's or keeper's property from which the dog could not voluntarily leave.
(d) It is not the intent of this chapter to prohibit law enforcement officers from using any trained dog that may attack on command, provided that each such dog must be in the presence of its handler or confined in accordance with police department policy at all times.(C.B. 97-33, § 1, 3-4-97)
Sec. 7-7. Keeping of vicious animals prohibited.
(a) No person shall keep, harbor, sell or give away any vicious animal within the City, whether or not owned by such person. Such animals are hereby declared nuisances and are subject to impoundment.
(b) An animal impounded under this section will not be returned to the owner unless the animal is not found to be vicious. Animals subsequently found to be vicious will be turned over by the city to an appropriate agent or agency for humane destruction.
(c) No landlord or landlord's agent shall knowingly permit any tenant to move a vicious dog into or keep a vicious dog in any building or premises owned or controlled by such landlord or agent. No landlord or landlord's agent shall knowingly permit any tenant to keep a vicious dog in any building or premises owned or controlled by such landlord or agent. Any landlord or agent thereof learning of any vicious dog in any building or premises owned or controlled by such a landlord or agent thereof shall notify theperson having such dog to remove the dog from the premises immediately.
(d) It is not the intent of this chapter to prohibit the police department from using any trained dog that may attack on command, provided that each such dog must be in the presence of its handler or confined in accordance with police department policy at all times.(C.B. 97-33, § 1, 3-4-97)
Cross references: Animal Control Act, 510 ILCS 5/1 et seq.
If your dog has a habit of chomping on people walking on the sidewalk, keep the damn thing on a leash before it mangles some kid or bites somebody who doesn't care if your dog gets taken away.
Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go back to hobbling. Ow!
---Update 10/30/2007 - 11:06AM
Made a report with animal control about the incident and they're going to talk to the owners to make sure they keep a closer watch on the dog and keep it secure. The dog isn't in any danger so my worries about the dog getting punished for irresponsible owners aren't an issue either. Hopefully nobody else gets chomped while walking by. Thanks to all for your input, no matter how blunt.
Ouch, that sounds very unpleasant. I'd seriously urge you to call animal control, since the next victim could be a child or elderly person. And if the dog was just "running down someone's driveway," that raises some questions about whether the owners are able and willing to keep it confined. Another advantage of contacting animal control is that you might want to have the animal tested for rabies. Owners that just let their dogs run wild might not be too conscientious about vaccination or veterinary care in general.
Glock
"And it wasn't all that far away from a couple schools where kids walk by on their way to and from."
it seems a bit disingenuous to lament what other damage this dog could do, then just walk away from the situation and hope it does not in fact occur.
I'll wait to get the dog's side of the story before I jump to any conclusions.
I have to agree with the other commenters on this one, Glock. By not reporting the incident, you are the irresponsible one.
(12) Vicious animal means: a. Any individual animal that, unprovoked, inflicts bites or attacks a human being or other animal either on public or private property;
I'll tell my cat to leave the birds alone.
First of all, Ouch!!! That sucks.
Second order of business: call animal control now, not later. Seriously. A vicious dog who is not properly restrained is a threat to everyone in the neighborhood, and not every victim that dog attacks is going to be as able to defend himself as you are.
Kem
Glock,
If you don't report this you might as well be the one doing the biting since you will be just as culpable as thie idiot that owns this menace. Grow a backbone and do what's right.
Or call Animal Control and tell them that the dog's Running-At-Large, but don't mention the bite. They'll at least look into it, and there will be some report for any future incidents.
Part (d) about police using attack dogs will become important as the pro-Chief nutcases grow more rabid.
Part (d) about police using attack dogs will become important as the pro-Chief nutcases grow more rabid.
Oooh, nice...those boots will also help you walk to the rally for all the pro-Chief nutcases. And the air that you breathe will allow you to shout out racist pro-Chief nutcase slogans at cowering Native Americans. And all of the dog bites that you get will help you to "grow more rabid" - not just figuratively, either, but for real!
You wear combat boots and your handle is Glock 21? It sounds to me like the dog should be dead by now, by dint of the 2nd Amendment.
Seriously, though, you should call this in. If a dog bites one person for no apparent reason, they will almost certainly do so again, and if it's a little kid, it could get nasty. It's what any responsible, pro-Chief nutcase would do.
"Part (d) about police using attack dogs will become important as the pro-Chief nutcases grow more rabid."
You've posted something about "pro-Chief nutcases" in nearly every thread since last week. If you do so again, in any thread that isn't already discussing something Chief-related, I'm going to delete it. There are plenty of places on here in which you can post insults of Chief Supporters and have them be considered topical. There's no reason to do so in every single thread.
If you have a problem with that, please email me to discuss, rather than further derailing discussions on here.
"I'd seriously urge you to call animal control, since the next victim could be a child or elderly person."
"it seems a bit disingenuous to lament what other damage this dog could do, then just walk away from the situation and hope it does not in fact occur."
"By not reporting the incident, you are the irresponsible one."
"If you don't report this you might as well be the one doing the biting since you will be just as culpable as thie idiot that owns this menace. Grow a backbone and do what's right."
In full agreement at this point. Problem with blogging before bedtime (yeah I know, 8am?), by the time you wake up you have a flood of reasons why you're so wrong! I'm going to talk to the owner first, though, just to be fair. Thanks for the input, no matter how blunt.
--
Glock21 Op/Ed
I'm going to talk to the owner first, though, just to be fair. Thanks for the input, no matter how blunt.
The problem with this strategy is that the owner is likely to tell you that their little precious would never mean to hurt anyone. If a vicious dog is running loose the owner has clearly demostrated that they are irresponsible and cannot be trusted to be responsible for their dog. The problem in these cases is always with the owner who has been irresponsible with their animal or there would not be a problem. Imagine what would have happened if you had been a mother with a child in a stroller or a little kid on the way home. These dogs often do kill people and sometimes permenantly disfigure children. You should see some of the pictures of children whose faces have been ripped off by a dog that someone said would never hurt anyone. You need to report this right away and I would not just call animal control you should call the police.
These dogs often do kill people and sometimes permenantly disfigure children.
While the really tragic incidents make headlines, we should get some stats to put this in perspective.
According to the CDC,
Each year, 4.7 million Americans are bitten by dogs. These bites result in approximately 16 fatalities; about 0.0002 percent of the total number of people bitten.
Of these, approximately 800,000 people require medical attention. That is, each year 1.8% of the U.S. population is bitten by a dog, and 0.3% of the U.S. population seeks medical care for a bite.
So, there are a lot of injuries, but very few fatalities. I'd imagine that the majority of the people requiring medical attention are looking to treat the superficial puncture wounds and get tested for rabies.
As far as the context of most dog bites, Gershman, Sacks, and Wright found that 51% of bite victims are children 12 and younger, where the dog is most likely an unneutered male German Shepherd or Chow (most likely because of the popularity), where the dog is chained in the backyard of a house with children. So, most dog bites aren't from Pit-Bulls or Rottweilers running at large.
This doesn't really contradict what anyone's said, but it should give a little more perspective. It seems that most people attribute dog bites to these "vicious, out of control pit bulls that roam the streets" - it's just not so.
"It seems that most people attribute dog bites to these "vicious, out of control pit bulls that roam the streets" - it's just not so."
Glock, isn't that comforting to hear? All it took were some simple statistics to explain away your supposed "dog attack".
Statistics are nice, but to someone who is attacked the reality is 100%. Just ask the 80 year old woman in Urbana who was attacked by a pit bull at 2AM in the morning when she went to let her dog out. Since this dog attacked once, (the attack on Glock), what are the stats that it will attack again? I think those stats would be more relevant in this discussion.
"You've posted something about "pro-Chief nutcases" in nearly every thread since last week. If you do so again, in any thread that isn't already discussing something Chief-related, I'm going to delete it. There are plenty of places on here in which you can post insults of Chief Supporters and have them be considered topical. There's no reason to do so in every single thread."
That's ok IP. Remember, the world is no longer "hostile and abusive" now that the Chief is gone, which is reflected in the numerous postings by this anti-Chief supporter.
:-)
Glock,
I agree with you about talking to the owner first... BUT... if the owner doesn't take the kinds of steps that a responsible owner should take in this scenario (i.e., picking up the $5 sign from the CPD and posting it per city ordinances shortly after you talk with him, offering to help with any medical bills related to the bite, and being genuinely empathetic and upset about the incident), then the dog needs to be put down.
Sorry to be the realist here, but it's just not neighborly to do anything else.
Kem
Just out of curiousty, why did you put a picture of a muzzled bull terrier, in winter, on the top of the thread? Did you mean it to be deceptively inflammatory?
Glock, isn't that comforting to hear? All it took were some simple statistics to explain away your supposed "dog attack".
Wow. The way I see it, there are two options for the source of this comment:
1) You have some of the best reading comprehension I've ever seen.
2) You love to put some BS spin on things - you should have a cable news show.
"Just out of curiousty, why did you put a picture of a muzzled bull terrier, in winter, on the top of the thread? Did you mean it to be deceptively inflammatory?"
Just a generic picture of a "bad dog"... that's all. Nothing more, nothing else.
--
Glock21 Op/Ed
If the dog isn't spayed or neutered, it might be good if Animal Control would at least impound the animal and do that. That can reduce problems with aggressive behavior (as well as unwanted puppies).
Wayward: The Bob Barker of IlliniPundit.com :)
"Wow. The way I see it, there are two options for the source of this comment:..."
So if all the miniscule percentages you quoted are to lead us to believe that we're discussing a problem that's, "just not so", then why does the source you cited, Gershman, Sacks, and Wright, make the statement, "Dog bites are an underrecognized public health problem."
There are plenty of other contradictions between the two sources you quote. Now who's trying to BS whom?
There are plenty of other contradictions between the two sources you quote. Now who's trying to BS whom?
If you actually read my comment, you'll see that it was in direct response to a comment that "These dogs often do kill people."
The miniscule percentages were to show that, despite 4.7 million bites per year (which isn't a miniscule percentage), only about 16 are fatal. I think that fairly contradicts the notion that the "dogs often kill people."
In fact, I said this initially: "So, there are a lot of injuries, but very few fatalities."
Also, I'm confused as to how you can take my last comments (majority of dog bites aren't from pit bulls RAL, this doesn't contradict what anyone said about reporting the incident, but contradicts some perceptions) to mean that dog bites are not a problem.
Again, please try reading my comments before you jump to conclusions.
I'm not going to bother wasting my time responding to any more of your comments, by the way. It's clear to me (and anyone else reading) that you either cannot parse them or actively choose to misrepresent them. Either way, nothing I say can fix that.
ThoughtPolice, Ok, I admit that I mis-read your post and I jumped to some conclusions.
My bad.
Thank you for pointing out my fax paux in a polite and civilized manner.