...the dog wasn't a mythical "pit bull". This is not the only incident where this has happened. I guess the media and politicians believe that victims of other types of dogs don't deserve the same compassion and coverage as victims of "pit bulls"...or do these attacks get ignored because they don't fulfill media and political agendas?
In the Niagara Region, over the Christmas holidays, a child was "viciously attacked" (as the media and politicians would say, if it were by a banned dog) by the Airedale terrier-type dog owned by acquaintances of the child's mother. Reportedly, the child was crawling away from an adult while playing; the dog came in through another doorway and grabbed the child by the face. The child lost half of his upper lip and part of the nostril, torn from inside the eye down to the chin.
The child was rushed to St. Catharines, then had to be transported to Niagara Falls because there was no pediatric surgeon on duty in St. Catharines. He will require at least one surgery on his lip so he might be able to drink properly.
The attacking dog has a history; it apparently attacked another family member's child at Christmas 2006. The bite was bad enough to require stitches. No media coverage then, either.
A reporter, employer unknown, went to the pound where the dog had been taken for euthanasia but no one has seen a word printed about this attack - probably because the dog wasn't a "pit bull".
And mainstream media wonders why average citizens don't trust it anymore.
Let's see what's wrong with this picture:
- dog has previous bite history
- no indication that the owner(s) worked with the dog, got in a trainer, anything responsible to try to prevent a repeat incident
- dog with previous bite history is allowed to roam loose in a house with a child
- owner responds to dog's issues by having dog killed
Child loses. Dog loses. Irresponsible owner gets off free and clear, free to get another dog and screw up again.
And the media ignores it.