A New Year-Time for Reflection-Not Ne...

Since: Sep 12

Weatherford, TX

#21 Jan 7, 2013
Return to your topic: Dog bite statistics

The breeds most likely to kill

In recent years, the dogs responsible for the bulk of the homicides are pit bulls and Rottweilers:

"Studies indicate that pit bull-type dogs were involved in approximately a third of human DBRF (i.e., dog bite related fatalities) reported during the 12-year period from 1981 through1992, and Rottweilers were responsible for about half of human DBRF reported during the 4 years from 1993 through 1996....[T]he data indicate that Rottweilers and pit bull-type dogs accounted for 67% of human DBRF in the United States between 1997 and 1998. It is extremely unlikely that they accounted for anywhere near 60% of dogs in the United States during that same period and, thus, there appears to be a breed-specific problem with fatalities." (Sacks JJ, Sinclair L, Gilchrist J, Golab GC, Lockwood R. Breeds of dogs involved in fatal human attacks in the United States between 1979 and 1998. JAVMA 2000;217:836-840.)

The Clifton study of attacks from 1982 through 2006 produced similar results. According to Clifton study, pit bulls, Rottweilers, Presa Canarios and their mixes were responsible for 65% of the canine homicides that occurred during a period of 24 years in the USA.(Clifton, Dog attack deaths and maimings, U.S. & Canada, September 1982 to November 13, 2006; click here to read it.)

Other breeds were also responsible for homicides, but to a much lesser extent. A 1997 study of dog bite fatalities in the years 1979 through 1996 revealed that the following breeds had killed one or more persons: pit bulls, Rottweilers, German shepherds, huskies, Alaskan malamutes, Doberman pinschers, chows, Great Danes, St. Bernards and Akitas.(Dog Bite Related Fatalities," Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, May 30, 1997, Vol. 46, No. 21, pp. 463 et. seq.) Since 1975, fatal attacks have been attributed to dogs from at least 30 breeds.

The most horrifying example of the lack of breed predictability is the October 2000 death of a 6-week-old baby, which was killed by her family's Pomeranian dog. The average weight of a Pomeranian is about 4 pounds, and they are not thought of as a dangerous breed. Note, however, that they were bred to be watchdogs! The baby's uncle left the infant and the dog on a bed while the uncle prepared her bottle in the kitchen. Upon his return, the dog was mauling the baby, who died shortly afterwards.("Baby Girl Killed by Family Dog," Los Angeles Times, Monday, October 9, 2000, Home Edition, Metro Section, Page B-5.)

In Canine homicides and the dog bite epidemic: do not confuse them, it has been pointed out that the dog bite epidemic as a whole involves all dogs and all dog owners, not just the breeds most likely to kill. In all fairness, therefore, it must be noted that:
•Any dog, treated harshly or trained to attack, may bite a person. Any dog can be turned into a dangerous dog. The owner or handler most often is responsible for making a dog into something dangerous.
•An irresponsible owner or dog handler might create a situation that places another person in danger by a dog, without the dog itself being dangerous, as in the case of the Pomeranian that killed the infant (see above).
•Any individual dog may be a good, loving pet, even though its breed is considered to be potentially dangerous. A responsible owner can win the love and respect of a dog, no matter its breed. One cannot look at an individual dog, recognize its breed, and then state whether or not it is going to attack.

Since: Sep 12

Weatherford, TX

#22 Jan 7, 2013
To read the entire article go to:

The dog bite epidemic: a primer

The number of dogs

There currently are 74.8 million dogs in the USA.(American Pet Products Manufacturers Association (APPMA) 2007-2008 National Pet Owners Survey.)

The number of victims

The most recent USA survey of dog bites, conducted by CDC researchers and based on data collected during 2001-2003, concluded that dogs bite 4.5 million Americans per year (1.5% of the entire population). Sacks JJ, Kresnow M. Dog bites: still a problem? Injury Prevention 2008 Oct;14(5):296-301.

Almost 800,000 bites per year -- one out of every 6 -- are serious enough to require medical attention.(Weiss HB, Friedman D, Coben JH. Incidence of dog bite injuries treated in emergency departments. JAMA 1998;279:51-53.)

Since: Sep 12

Weatherford, TX

#23 Jan 7, 2013
I bet the animal people do not have liability insurance -

Adoption Organization Liability for Dog Bites

Rescue organizations, pet adoption groups, shelters and all others who transfer ownership of a dog can be held legally liable if they fail to obtain and report important information to the dog's new owner.
for the love of C

Weatherford, TX

#27 Jan 7, 2013
man, do you really have NOTHING better to do?

You suck at life

Since: Sep 12

Weatherford, TX

#28 Jan 8, 2013
for the love of C wrote:
man, do you really have NOTHING better to do?
You suck at life
And you are on here, Why? Nothing better to do?

Since: Sep 12

Weatherford, TX

#29 Jan 8, 2013
Animal Shelters

Not all animal shelters are the same. Fortunate homeless and unwanted animals end up in the hundreds of open-admission animal shelters that are staffed by professional, caring people.
At these facilities, frightened animals are reassured, sick and injured animals receive treatment or a peaceful end to their suffering, and the animals' living quarters are kept clean and dry. Workers at these facilities never turn away needy animals and give careful consideration to each animal's special emotional and physical needs.
To be able to offer refuge to every animal in need, open-admission shelters must euthanize unadopted and unadoptable animals. The alternative—turning them away—is cruel and leaves the animals in grave danger.
Many less fortunate lost or abandoned animals end up in pitiful shelters that are nothing more than shacks without walls or other protection from the elements, where animals are often left to die from exposure, disease, or fights with other animals.

So-called "no-kill" or "turn-away" shelters, which are supported by supposed animal rights activist Nathan Winograd, have the luxury of not euthanizing animals because they turn away needy ones whom they deem unadoptable. Many keep waiting lists, which compromise animals' safety by leaving them in situations in which they are clearly unwanted. Where do these unwanted animals go? The lucky ones will be taken to clean open-admission facilities that have responsible policies about euthanasia and adoption.

But many animals who are refused by turn-away facilities are dumped on the road, in the woods, in the yard of the local "cat lady" (also called a "hoarder"), or in the custody of some other unscrupulous person. Some don't even make it out of the animal shelter's parking lot.
In June 2005, for example, a Pennsylvania man who tried to surrender his dog to a no-kill shelter was told that he would have to make an appointment to return two weeks later when the facility might have room. The man grabbed his dog, got in his pickup truck, and left. At the next intersection, he threw the dog out of the truck and ran over him, crushing the dog beneath his tires. Shelter workers, who wouldn't help the dog before he died, collected the dog's remains.

Animals who are accepted into no-kill shelters may be warehoused in cages for months, years, or the rest of their lives, becoming more withdrawn, depressed, or aggressive every day—further reducing their chances of adoption. Conditions at some no-kill shelters are criminal.
PETA's undercover investigation at a North Carolina no-kill shelter called All Creatures Great and Small documented that animals were suffering physically and emotionally as a result of ongoing, systematic abuse and neglect. In addition, the investigator observed that dogs, cats, and other animals were frequently left to languish in constant confinement, deprived of veterinary care, and subjected to a multitude of other atrocities.
No shelter that truly cares for animals should ever turn its back on an animal in need, even when that means taking in animals who are diseased, badly injured, aggressive, or elderly. These animals have little to no chance of being adopted or helped by anyone else, but a responsible animal shelter should at least provide them with a painless release from a world that does not want them.
You can help stop the overpopulation crisis that leads to extremely crowded animal shelters. Sign PETA's pledge to end animal homelessness, always have your animal companions spayed or neutered, and never buy an animal from a breeder or pet shop.
Please do not allow your companion animal to be needlessly euthanized during times of crises. Take the appropriate steps now to ensure that he or she is well taken care of even after your divorce or death.

Since: Sep 12

Weatherford, TX

#30 Jan 8, 2013
How “No-Kill” Shelters Kill Animals
Written by PETA

As someone who has spent years volunteering at a wonderful open-admission animal shelter, it breaks my heart when people use the term "kill shelters" to refer to shelters that accept every needy animal—no matter how beat up, old, ill, or behaviorally unsound they are—and that have no choice but to give some animals a painless, dignified release through euthanasia.
This mean-spirited, misleading label is a slap in the face to the brave people who pour their hearts and souls into helping animals at open-admission shelters. I wish that those who use this term could spend a day at the receiving desk of their local full-service shelter so that they could see firsthand how badly we need open-door shelters. A steady flow of people arrive with battered, broken animals of all shapes, sizes, and species: "We call her Matty because she's full of mats," said one person who was surrendering a dog whose matted fur was infested with maggots. Matty's family was getting rid of her because they wanted a puppy.
Other reasons people have given for taking animals to the shelter include "He's sick, and I can't afford to take him to the vet," "He's chewing up everything, and my dad said he's gonna shoot him," "She's just old," "He was great as a puppy, but now he's just too big," "We just have too many animals," "They have been hanging around the house, and we don't want them," "Someone dumped them at my house," and "We're moving."
Nearly everyone leaves the shelter saying the same thing: "You won't kill him, will you?" What else can shelters do when they have a limited number of cages and an unlimited number of needy animals pouring through their doors? There is no huge farm for unwanted animals—a fantasy that many people's parents told them existed when their childhood animal friends were brought to open-admission shelters—and shelters don't have a magic wand that they can wave to create loving homes.
This name-calling hurts animals because it scares people away from surrendering animals to reputable shelters. It misleads people into thinking that taking cats and dogs to facilities that don't euthanize is the right thing to do, but animals at these places often suffer fates worse than death. These facilities are always full and have long waiting lists to accept animals, which results in people dumping animals to die on the streets, giving them away on Craigslist (a magnet for animal abusers), or abandoning them to starve in empty homes and yards after they move away.
There is no such thing as "high-kill," "low-kill," or anything in between when it comes to shelters. There are only open-admission shelters—those that provide refuge to every animal and must euthanize to ensure that their doors remain open to more needy animals—and limited-admission shelters—those that pick and choose only the cutest, youngest, and most adoptable animals and turn away everyone else.
For the sake of animals and the people who have devoted their lives to helping them, let's stop the name-calling and support shelters that are committed to doing what's best for animals— even when that's the hardest thing to do.
Written by Lindsay Pollard-Post

Since: Sep 12

Weatherford, TX

#32 Jan 8, 2013
The animal people are always singing the praises of their messiah, Nathan Winograd - read the following to learn of his real "success" in California -


Since: Sep 12

Weatherford, TX

#33 Jan 8, 2013

Saturday, July 9, 2011

I managed to not look at his blog for awhile now but today I did. If you look at it, you'll see the same. He hates everyone except, of course, himself. He condemns all the organizations who stand up to cruelty in puppy mills, who stand up against dog fighting, who stand up period. The question one has to ask, what the hell does Winograd do against these evils in our world. The answer is NOT A DAMN THING!! All he does is run his big mouth, no action, and write worthless books. And he teaches his cult followers to hate, only hate, not try to help, just hate. Are they going into shelters and taking animals out - NO. Are they sitting in budget meetings to get animal control/shelters more money so they can do new programs - NO. Are they trying to bring the public into shelters to adopt - DEFINITELY NO!! They push the public away, if anything, so they can set it up to get Whino a consulting job. These are terrorists, people, forcing their philosophy on us.

Sorry to bust your bubble, Whino, but look closely at Austin's numbers, not the bullshit percentages of Abigail Smith and your cronies, No Kill Austin. It ain't that pretty a picture and I am in the midst of blowing Austin's numbers up. Charlottesville is giving away animals, devaluing them even more. If someone is looking for a bargain on a pet, you can bet that pet will never see the inside of a vet's office.

Whino, you are still avoiding the challenge issued by Pat Dunaway to prove what you say about her. You've sent your cult troops into San Bernardino to dig up something and all they are managing to do is make themselves and you look even more foolish than you already are. Stay tuned for more on this situation.

Since: Sep 12

Weatherford, TX

#34 Jan 8, 2013
http://devoreshelterfriends.blogspot.com/2012... , April 4, 2012

The activists constantly are referring to the "success" stories of "No Kill". Are there any? No, not really. Of the 30 being reported, not exactly an overwhelming success story after all these years, none are actually open door. http://www.nokillnews.com/ When you use a waiting list or evaluations, you are no longer open door which is to take any and all at presentation. You can see that these self proclaimed open door shelters are indeed not open door. http://gretthevetretired.blogspot.com/ takes these claims and shows that open door is just a claim, it is not true.
Here are some of those listed on No Kill News (link above). Baton Rouge is a good one since No Kill News was bragging about it only five days before it was being investigated for cruelty.
Thanks to http://nokillexposed.wordpress.com/ for this list. The LA City fiasco is not listed. The current head of LA City animal control is a supreme follower of Nathan Winograd's NKE program. Under her euthanasia has risen, adoptions have fallen, and she has managed to give away a brand new shelter to a private rescue group whose base is a church that worships Satan.
The list needs to include San Francisco which Winograd claims as a bragging right too. http://www.northsidesf.com/sep09/features_cov...
Sayreville, New Jersey – In danger of closing
Porter Co., Indiana –“…the troubled no kill shelter”
FORGOTTEN FELINES – no kill shelter for cats – CLOSED
Brooklyn, Ohio NO KILL SHELTER Closes
Raeford, North Carolina – State to put down no kill shelter for five years of failed inspections – 2009 animal count was 746 dogs and 592 cats
Las Vegas No Kill Forced To Shut Down Due to Conditions
San Antonio, Tx No Kill Forced To Close - Evicted


Since: Sep 12

Weatherford, TX

#35 Jan 8, 2013

Gilmer County No Kill Rescue Closing – Lack of Volunteers
Charlotte, North Carolina Cat Rescue –“Too many cats”
Colorado No Kill Shelter Served “Cease and Desist” Order -
Henderson, North Carolina No Kill Rescue -
Stephenville, Canada No Kill Shelter Forced To Close –“...suffering severe neglect”
Picqua, Ohio No Kill Shelter Condemned By City Health Officials
Kingman, Arizona No Kill Shelter In Front of Judge – 174 dogs along with 88 cats and 13 pigs.
Texas City, Texas No Kill Rescue - county authorities seize 187 cats and find 27 dead -
Lynchburg, Virginia No Kill Requests More Than Triple Budget Increase
Marion County< W. Virginia No Kill Shelter Faces Possible Shut Down
Boone County, W. Virginia No Kill Rescue – Abuse Investigation
Bloomingdale, Chicago No Kill Rescue – state officials claim “crowded and unsanitary” conditions
Jersey City, New Jersey No Kill Shelter – State threatened to shut down due to health problems
Jersey City, New Jersey No Kill Spca Shut Down For Health Violations
South Africa No Kill Shelter – Exposed for Conditions
Washougal, Washington No Kill Shelter On Verge of Shut Down
In 2008, the Humane Society of Tacoma and Pierce County, in Tacoma, Washington, backed away from its no-kill commitment, acknowledging the difficulties encountered in trying to keep animals alive. In announcing their decision, the shelter president stated “that because we are an open shelter that will accept every animal that comes to us, regardless of its medical or behavior problems, true ‘no-kill’ status will never be a reality.” The shelter has now switched from no-kill to “Counting Down to Zero”, a coordinated effort to reduce euthanasia.
Forgotten Felines, a Canadian no-kill shelter for cats in Delta, British Columbia, was closed following an October 2008 investigation by the BC Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals which found 51 cats suffering fromstarvation, dehydration, infection, and illness. Five cats died because of illness, 36 were adopted and the remainder were euthanized. The former director was charged with animal cruelty.
In 2009, the Newfoundland and Labrador, Canada provincial government and the town of Stephenville began negotiations to close their no-kill animal shelter, claiming that upwards of 100 dogs and cats with diseases or behavioral problems were suffering severe neglect. Media quoted the town’s mayor as stating that animals cannot be humanely stored indefinitely. The animals in the shelter will be evaluated by veterinarians but will most likely be euthanized.
A no-kill policy led to a dispute between the Toronto Humane Society and the Ontario Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals in 2009, with the OSPCA revoking the THS’ credentials for several months while it conducted an investigation. Several staff and officers with the THS were arrested, although all of the charges were eventually dropped.

Since: Sep 12

Weatherford, TX

#41 Jan 8, 2013
No Kill Movement Savior or Scam?

As previously mentioned, No Kill rescues are adopting out pit bulls that end up attacking. No Kill proclaims that pit bulls get a "bad rap". Pits and pit types are killing people at the rate of one every 20 days, this is not a bad rap, this is reality. Also mentioned above are the groups of doctors calling for regulation of pits in order to reduce severe maulings and fatalities. No Kill is against this type of regulation that can save lives of not only people but our beloved pets. This stance is adding to the growing numbers of maulings and fatalities because people do buy into the myth that pit bulls are nanny dogs. This allows No Kill to push pit bulls on those ill equipped to deal with this breed.
No Kill is nothing new, it has been around for awhile. The term "no kill" was originally a marketing term to distinguish between those private shelters who could pick their guests and the public open door shelters that took any and all. The line has been blurred along the way with distinct movements. An article in Readers Digest in 2000 shows the same problems that abound today. What is new are the schemes and scams that are now being apparent.

A Fate Worse Than Death: Are 'No-Kill' Shelters Truly Humane? Reader's Digest Probe Uncovers 'Horror Shows,' Hypocrisy

PLEASANTVILLE, N.Y., July 20 /PRNewswire/-- Pam Strange thought a visit to the local animal shelter last year would awaken her 4-H group to the plight of homeless animals. She was completely unprepared for what the kids would see.

Dogs limping around with mange and open sores. Others gasping for air or dragging broken legs, struggling to fight off vicious packs in the large communal pen. "I might as well have taken them to a horror show," says the West Monroe, La., woman.

The Ouachita Humane Society is a "no-kill" shelter, part of a growing movement that claims to offer a caring alternative to euthanasia. But a six-month investigation by Reader's Digest magazine reveals atrocious conditions at some of these facilities -- even as many no-kill advocates hypocritically denounce traditional shelters as killers and butchers.

Ultimately, the blame begins with pet owners. Until they act more responsibly -- including spaying or neutering their dogs and cats to keep the population in check -- our shelters will continue to be overwhelmed. And as Reader's Digest reports in its July 2000 issue, the no-kill cause will continue to be a seductive fantasy.
These are only a handful of examples of the failure of No Kill. Failures mean suffering for animals. No Kill campaigns against those organizations who are in the forefront of stopping animal cruelty. One has to ask what is the true agenda of a movement that allows for these situations to exist and then fights those who stop those situations of cruelty. Prior to the advent of No Kill, intake numbers in the shelters were falling because of the efforts of spay/neuter. Now the intake numbers are crawling back up because spay/neuter is no longer the focus because of No Kill. We are falling back, not gaining, with the No Kill effort. It's time to come back to the reality, the reality that there is a pet overpopulation problem and will be until people alter their pets as a common practice.

Since: Sep 12

Weatherford, TX

#42 Jan 8, 2013
Ladies and Gentlemen - if you have read any of the above posts then you should realize that local Help Weatherford Shelter Pets, Parker Paws and Parker County Pets Alive are feeding you a line and repeating mis-truths as supplied by their no-kill guru, Nathan Winograd. They would like you to believe that becoming no-kill is easy, you just have to care enough. If it does not happen, well then, it's because the shelter employees are lazy, the city management does not care, the public does not care, the local business do not care. They fail now and will always fail to recognize the real problems associated with too many animals. They want you to believe that the program called TNR is the perfect answer to unwanted feral cats. However, unless you have a person who is willing to trap every cat in every colony every year for rabies shots, then they are contributing to the spread of rabies in this county. Just be aware of all sides to the animal question and do not automatically believe everyone is a kind, animal loving person, nor that they have the best interest of animals at heart. They believe that they and they alone have the capacity to determine the breed of a dog. They would like the local shelter to adopt out every pit bull or pit mix on the premises without reservations - only they will not be liable, but the shelter will and therefore the city and county. I believe they have control issues and that their goal all along has been the take over of the local shelter. Because of them there are dogs at the shelter now that have been there for months. They cannot guarantee the health or disposition of any animal, foster or shelter animal. They do not know the situation the animal came from nor do they know the environment to which the animal will be going. It should be your decision and your decision only regarding any animal you choose to adopt.

Since: Sep 12

Weatherford, TX

#43 Jan 8, 2013
Mexico City feral dog killings open debate
By ADRIANA GOMEZ LICON and MICHAEL WEISSENSTEIN Associated Press The Associated Press
Tuesday, January 8, 2013 8:29 PM EST

MEXICO CITY (AP)— Police scoured a hilly urban park for feral dogs and tested dozens of captured animals on Tuesday in a hunt for those responsible for four fatal maulings that have set off a fierce debate about how to handle the thousands of stray dogs that roam this massive city.

Authorities have captured 25 dogs near the scene of the attacks in the capital's poor Iztapalapa district, but rather than calm residents, photos of the forlorn dogs brought a wave of sympathy for the animals, doubts about their involvement in the killings and debate about government handling of the stray dog problem.

Activists started an online campaign protesting the dogs' innocence and calling for authorities not to euthanize them. Tens of thousands of dogs are euthanized each year in Mexico if they are captured by animal control officers and not claimed within 72 hours. Many people re-posted the images of the dogs staring sadly from behind bars at an animal shelter.

The hashtag for the campaign became the top trending topic on Twitter in Mexico by midday Tuesday, with some users furiously accusing the authorities of cruelty to animals and others sarcastically calling the dogs "political prisoners" and mocking the fuss over the fate of the animals.

Officials said they were testing the captured dogs' fur for blood, and examining their stomach contents to determine if they were the killers of the four people whose bodies were found covered in dog bites in two separate incidents in recent days.

Neighbors of the Cerro de la Estrella park found the bodies of a 26-year-old woman and a 1-year-old child in the area on Dec. 29, authorities said. The woman, Shunashi Mendoza, was missing her left arm, and prosecutors said that both she and the boy had bled to death.

Then on Saturday visitors to the park found the bodies of Alejandra Ruiz, 15, and her boyfriend Samuel Martinez, 16, who had gone to the park Saturday afternoon and were found dead from blood loss. The girl called her sister Diana Ruiz at around 7 p.m. pleading for help, the sister told Milenio Television.

Since: Sep 12

Weatherford, TX

#44 Jan 9, 2013

The problem with feral cats
March 29, 2012 8:45 am

By Scott Shalaway

Hunters and birders may seem unlikely allies, but they share many conservation goals. One is maintaining healthy populations of birds and mammals for viewing and hunting.

Free roaming feral cats pose a serious threat to this objective. The University of Nebraska Extension service has just published a review of the feral cat problem ( www.ianrpubs.unl.edu/epublic/live/ec1781/buil... ).

Free-roaming feral cats are not pets. They are at least one generation removed from domestication. To survive, feral cats prey on small birds, small mammals and even small reptiles and amphibians.

The Nebraska report estimates that 60 million feral cats kill 480 million birds every year, and the American Bird Conservancy ( www.abcbirds.org ) estimates they kill more than a billion small mammals annually.

During the nesting season, cats concentrate on flightless chicks of ground-nesting species such as quail, grouse, turkeys, waterfowl and shorebirds. At this time of year, cats stalk birdfeeders for easy meals. Often piles of bloody feathers are the only evidence left behind.

Ending this slaughter is simple. Wildlife agencies could declare a 365-day open season on feral cats with no bag limit. But that won't happen. I haven't found a single agency that claims jurisdiction over feral cats. In Pennsylvania and West Virginia cats are considered domestic animals, and generally under the jurisdiction of county police departments and dog catchers. This is particularly problematic because dogs must be licensed, but the cat lobby has successfully avoided mandatory licensing for felines.

Then there's the TNVR crowd. Their solution is to trap, neuter, vaccinate and release feral cats. The good news is that they cannot breed, but these cats are still killing machines.

The feral cat problem is exacerbated by cat owners who insist their cats need a daily dose of fresh air. But cats are domesticated animals that thrive indoors. Outdoors, their life expectancy shortens considerably. That's a fact.

The list of the risks that outdoor cats face includes death by hungry coyotes; attack by dogs, other cats, raccoons, skunks, and foxes that can result in puncture wounds, infections, rabies, and distemper; unspeakable cruelty inflicted by sadistic people; and infestations of fleas, ticks and other parasites.

Keeping cats indoors is a no-brainer. It's best for cats, their owners, the neighbors and the environment.

Since: Sep 12

Weatherford, TX

#45 Jan 9, 2013

Feral cats by Greg Homel
(Washington, D.C., September 21, 2011) Feral cat colonies bring together a series of high risk elements that result in a ‘perfect storm’ of rabies exposure, according to Steve Holmer, senior policy analyst at American Bird Conservancy. Holmer’s assertion is part of his presentation, called “Managed Cat Colonies and Rabies,” that is one of 28 presentations being aired in over 70 countries in connection with the second annual World Rabies Day International Webinar to be held September 21 and 22.

Managed cat colonies are becoming common in most major U.S. cities and are usually operated by volunteers who like to feed cats, rely on a scheme called Trap, Neuter, Release (TNR), whereby cats are trapped, neutered, and then returned to the outdoors. Unfortunately, these cats are often not vaccinated against rabies. Even when they are vaccinated when first trapped, re-trapping cats to revaccinate can be problematic as the cats become wary of the traps. There is also typically not the funding or infrastructure among the colony feeders to repeatedly re-trap cats to administer vaccines.

Peer reviewed studies have shown that over time, cat colonies increase in size, the result of the inability to neuter or spay all the cats and the dumping of unwanted cats at the colony sites by callous pet owners. The result is a large number of unvaccinated cats.

“While cats make up a small percentage of rabies vectors, they are responsible for a disaproportionate number of human exposures,” said Holmer. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, most people are exposed to rabies due to close contact with domestic animals such as cats and dogs. Although dogs historically posed a greater rabies threat to humans, dog-related incidents have become less frequent in recent decades, dropping from 1,600 cases in 1958 to just 75 in 2008. Meanwhile, cases involving cats have increased over the same period with spikes of up to 300 cases in a single year.

“Managed colonies teach feral cats to associate with humans, and while most people will not interact with wildlife, especially animals displaying erratic behavior, cats are perceived as domestic and approachable,” Holmer says.

When humans establish outdoor feeding stations for feral cats, they provide a catalyst for rabies transmission. Rabies is passed from the wildlife that is attracted to the food to the cats, and from the cats to people. According to the Center for Disease Control, cats are now the most common vector for the spread of rabies from a domestic species. In 2009 alone, there were seven accounts of rabid cats attacking people on the East Coast. As a rabies vector species, domestic cats pose a threat to human health that can be addressed by responsible pet ownership.

“Managed feral cat colonies bring together all the elements necessary to create a perfect storm of risk: concentrated numbers of unvaccinated cats, wildlife vector species attracted to food sources provided for the cats, proximity to humans, and contact among all three of these groups. Feral cat colonies only strengthen the chain of rabies transmission,” Holmer said.

“The increase in the cases of human rabies exposure from feral cats should be a concern to city and other government officials. This problem will only get worse as managed feral cat colonies grow in number because half truths about their impacts and implications on local communities and the environment is accepted by decision makers who mistakenly believe they are receiving full disclosure,” said Holmer.

In addition to posing a rabies risk, outdoor and feral cats that number at least 95 million animals in the United States, are responsible for killing an estimated 500 million birds annually in addition to scores of other small animals. Outdoor cats are responsible, in part or in whole, for the
extinction of at least 33 species of birds.

Since: Sep 12

Weatherford, TX

#46 Jan 9, 2013
So, you want to sign up to be a foster for one of the Weatherford animal groups - before you get all dewey and rosey eyed, call your insurance agent and your attorney - ask them who will pay if your fostered animal bites someone or otherwise causes another person harm. I think you will find the answer most interesting, eh?

Since: Sep 12

Weatherford, TX

#47 Jan 9, 2013
Sellers, rescue organizations, adoption agencies, shelters and dog owners (collectively referred to as "transferors") have certain legal obligations when they place a dog with a new owner. A breach of any of those obligations can result in civil liability or even criminal charges.
Civil liability will result from adopting out a dog that is known to be dangerous, is known to have dangerous propensities, or is misrepresented as being safe when the transferor has no reasonable basis to make that representation. A dog known to be dangerous or vicious must be put down or cured of its potentially injurious tendency.(For definitions and a discussion of the concepts of dangerousness and viciousness, see Dangerous and Vicious Dogs.)
The need to euthanize an animal is one of the foreseeable burdens of animal ownership. Even the jurisdictions that have a "no kill" policy acknowledge that some animals must be put down. For example, the State of California has decreed that "[i]t is the policy of the state that no adoptable animal should be euthanized if it can be adopted into a suitable home." Cal. Civil Code sec. 1834.4. The state has also determined that "[i]t is the policy of the state that no treatable animal should be euthanized." (Ibid.) Despite these policies, however, section 1834.4 permits euthanizing an animal unless it has "no sign of a behavioral or temperamental defect that could pose a health or safety risk or otherwise make the animal unsuitable for placement as a pet...." There are other exceptions as well.
It should be noted that when mention is made of putting down a dog because of its dangerousness, we are referring to a particular dog that has manifested dangerous or vicious behavior. There is no law in the USA, either enacted or proposed, which would require the gathering up and methodical killing of dogs because of their breed.(For more about breed specific legislation, see Breed Specific Laws.)

Since: Sep 12

Weatherford, TX

#48 Jan 9, 2013
http://dogbitelaw.com/adoption-organization-l... Cont'd

A transferor may also be liable for breach of a promise, representation or warranty. These can be made orally or in writing, and can be express or implied. A common problem is the transferor who says a dog is safe with children and other animals when, in fact, the transferor has no reasonable basis for making the assertion. At the present time, there exist a number of temperament tests for evaluating whether a dog is suitable for placement, but despite the practical advantages of such tests, their use has not become so universal as to provide a reliable shield against liability. Therefore it is difficult under any circumstances to predict that a dog will be safe in a new environment.
All too often, transferors go so far as to lie about a dog's suitability, saying a dog is safe when they have not investigated its history, evaluated its temperament or observed it for a sufficient amount of time. This is especially egregious when the dog was received under circumstances that strongly indicate it was a potential danger to animals or humans.
Breach of duty does not take place only where the transferor makes statements about the dog. A shelter that places dogs into the homes of families should know that the public expects that only suitable dogs will be placed. Essentially an implied warranty of suitability arises from the very relationship between the public and the shelter. People have the right to expect either a suitable dog or at least a full disclosure. The policy of many shelters is to refrain from gathering information about dogs, and to simply pass the dogs along to new families without providing any information about the animals. This policy ignores the obvious risks of this practice and the reasonable expectations of the public, and as such is not only a breach of that trust but also may result in civil liability -- and possibly more, as discussed in the next paragraph.
There can be criminal consequences if a dangerous dog seriously injures or kills someone in the new household. In recent years there have been at least two criminal prosecutions of adoption agencies and their volunteers. In one case, an agency placed a dangerous dog with an elderly woman and, 10 days later, it brutally killed her. It turned out that the dog was accepted by the agency under circumstances that clearly implied that the animal was vicious. A criminal prosecution for homicide resulted.
Complicated problems may arise for any adoption agency or rescue organization that retains ownership of the dog after placing it in a new home. By doing so, the agency or rescue organization is going to be held responsible for anything that a dog owner can be responsible for -- possible animal cruelty violations all the way to civil liability in the event that the dog bites anybody.(For further information, see Legal Rights of a Dog Bite Victim on this web site.)

Since: Sep 12

Weatherford, TX

#49 Jan 9, 2013

Incidents of personal injury, death and property damage caused by domestic animals, primarily dogs, are on the rise. Texas courts presently are expanding liability beyond pet owners and keepers to landlords and property owners' associations.

Common law (case law) does not include specific laws pertaining to dog-owner liability but includes them under the general rules regarding liability for domestic animals. Under common law, owners or keepers are strictly liable for personal injuries or death caused by a domesticated animal in their care when the following can be proven:

· The animal possessed a dangerous or vicious propensity abnormal to its class.

· The owner or keeper knew or should have known about the animal's dangerous propensity.

· The animal's dangerous propensity caused personal injury or death.

Case law is not clear on the definition of "dangerous or vicious propensity" or on when and how the owner or keeper acquires knowledge of this propensity. There is some truth to the old adage that "every dog has a free bite," meaning no liability for injury attaches to the owner until the animal demonstrates a dangerous tendency. However, growling, snarling or other aggressive behavior could indicate a vicious propensity without the dog actually biting or mauling someone.

The ruling in one case held that knowledge of an animal's habits can be shown through testimony regarding the animal's reputation for being vicious and its tendency to bite. In another case, the court ruled that an owner's awareness of a dog having killed a bird did not demonstrate knowledge of a vicious propensity to injure people.
Lewis v. Great Southwest Corporation involved a goat butting a child at a petting zoo. The parents sued. Because no evidence indicated any of the goats at the zoo had ever demonstrated a dangerous propensity, the amusement park avoided liability. In this case, the court classified the goats as "domesticated animals," not wild animals. There's a vast difference.
Owners or keepers of wild animals such as lions, tigers and wolves face a different standard for personal injuries. The law presumes that owners or keepers of wild animals know the animals have a vicious or dangerous propensity and, therefore, holds them liable for injuries or deaths caused by the animals. Proof of prior knowledge is irrelevant. In the Lewis case, had the courts viewed the goats as wild animals, the amusement park may have been liable.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Granbury Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Election Who do you support for U.S. House in Texas (Dis... (Oct '10) Thu El C 27
gang stalking in dfw (Feb '16) Wed Garrett 835
Filmed Jun 15 Garrett 11
News Ethan Couch's Mom, Tonya, Arrested for Using Am... Jun 14 pgh 1
News Sex offender last seen in Beaumont added to sta... May 26 judy 3
News Ex-police chief arrested again (Sep '07) May '18 Seemore 26
News The oldest town in Texas beckons for an off-the... Mar '18 pedro lopez garcia 8

Granbury Jobs

Personal Finance

Granbury Mortgages