Dog Bites Man (Et Tu, McGruff? Edition)

Nick Gillespie | October 19, 2005

As reader Russ Dewey puts it, sometimes it is news when dog bites man--especially when said man is the fellow below:

Dog Attacks Anti-Dangerous Dog Bill Author
...

The author of a new state law that allows felony charges against owners of dangerous dogs was hospitalized over the weekend after his own dog attacked him.

Bob Schwartz, who also is Gov. Bill Richardson's crime adviser, was hospitalized at University of New Mexico Hospital on Sunday night with bites on both his arms, said Pahl Shipley, a spokesman for the governor.

A hospital spokeswoman declined to release Schwartz's condition, but Shipley said Schwartz is "going to be fine."

Schwartz has three dogs registered with the city: a boxer and two English bulldogs, said Denise Wilcox, who oversees Albuquerque's animal care centers.

Whole thing here.

Comments

|10.19.05 @ 9:32PM|#

HAHAHAHHAHAA.

That's the funniest thing I've heard all week!

Ii can't say that's a bad law, but DAMN is that ironic!

|10.20.05 @ 4:16AM|#

Good thing he survived. I'd hate for his death certificate to have listed cause of death as Terminal Irony Overdose.

Ron Hardin|10.20.05 @ 4:52AM|#

Usually in such situations the dog is right.

|10.20.05 @ 7:07AM|#

And I thought "Dog Bites Man" stories weren't supposed to be good journalism.

|10.20.05 @ 7:22AM|#

Yeah, I would feel much better about this if this guy was one of those asshole "breed-banners".

I have no problem throwing the book at irresponsible dog owners. They fuck it up for everyone else.

|10.20.05 @ 8:18AM|#

I volunteer to represent the dog !!!

|10.20.05 @ 8:54AM|#

Et tu, canis?

|10.20.05 @ 9:49AM|#

Dogbite
On my leg
Not right
Supposed to beg

|10.20.05 @ 9:50AM|#

So, he will be charged under his law, right?

|10.20.05 @ 9:55AM|#

Shem,
I think under his law, had he died, it would have been a suicide.

|10.20.05 @ 9:55AM|#

Does New Mexico have an assisted suicide law? Maybe the dogs were helping their owner out.

|10.20.05 @ 10:26AM|#

I'm just glad it was a boxer and not a pit. (I'm assuming it was the boxer. If the English bulldogs jacked him up I would be amazed.) They don't need any more bad press. The poor pits get the worst rap. They are some of the sweetest, smartest dogs around. It's not their fault that many of their owners tend to be some of the dumbest, most irresponsible humans around.

R C Dean|10.20.05 @ 10:32AM|#

They are some of the sweetest, smartest dogs around.

I'm a long time pit owner, and have two now. I will defend them to the death, and they are indeed the sweetest, nicest dogs around.

But (with exceptions) mostly they are dumb as rocks.

|10.20.05 @ 11:25AM|#

But (with exceptions) mostly they are dumb as rocks.

I guess it's in how you interpret it. One man's stubborn is another man's dumb.

That being said, I have watched a pit chase down bottle rockets and let them explode in his mouth repeatedly until he was chained up for his own safety. And he was still trying to break free and chase them. So maybe smartest was an overstatement on my part.

Wow. I think the above anecdote just revealed way too much of my white trash roots.

|10.20.05 @ 11:46AM|#

Now all we need is for Charles Schumer to negligently discharge his carry pistol into his thigh, and this will be

the

best

week

ever

|10.20.05 @ 12:07PM|#

Har har harroof roof roof.

|10.20.05 @ 12:09PM|#

You WILL give me the Dog Chow. Now. Or else.

|10.20.05 @ 11:25PM|#

I have a hard time getting riled up over attempts to ban/regulate pit bulls. There are certainly responsible, caring pit bull owners, but of the not small number that I've met, 4 times out of 5 the owner was a massive jackass who didn't seem to realize that having an animal that was bred to kill bears isn't like buying a golden retriever. Banning them outright seems a bit much, but requiring classes to properly train the owners and obedience training for the dogs doesn't seem unreasonable to me.

M. Simon|10.21.05 @ 8:42AM|#

What he needs to do is get himself convicted under the law and then sue himself for negligence.

Hoe could become rich.

M. Simon|10.21.05 @ 8:44AM|#

Well I meant he. But, since we are talking lawmakers hoe will do.

|10.21.05 @ 10:37AM|#

an animal that was bred to kill bears

That's the kind of uninformed crap that fuels the anti-pit rhetoric. They were not bred to kill bears. They were bread to wear out ornery bulls so they could be worked with. Thus the word bull in bull terrier. Pit bulls were used to fight one another and bears. But, you have to train them to do so. At least to the death. Dogs usually fight until one achieves dominance over the other then they quit. It takes a human to teach them to kill.

In England a common nickname for them was "the nanny dog" because families with children often had one to keep an eye on the kids when they were out playing. Nana in the book Peter Pan was a bull terrier. Disney turned her into a sheep dog. They have an extremely gentle nature with their family, but can be fiercely protective. Cocker spaniels bite more people each year than pits. The difference is that when a cocker bites you it doesn't chomp through the bone.

They are truly amazing animals that pack a lot of power. I've seen a pit take a cow to the ground by its nose. If you have one you need to train it and you need to be aware of what it can do. But if they are socialized with kids and other animals they are no more dangerous than any other large breed dog.

Don't punish the breed. Punish the owner. If some jackass�s' pit attacks someone then charge them with criminal negligence or manslaughter. You don't need classes and special licenses to own one. Just like "hate crimes" and "gun crimes" all you need to do is enforce the laws on the books.

When you have animals that have been beaten since birth to toughen 'em up, swam until they nearly drown to make 'em lean, fed gun powder to make 'em mean and in some case shot up with steroids to muscle 'em up � or even just some poor creature that has been chained up and un-socialized it�s entire life - then what you have is an owner that needs to be put down.

|10.21.05 @ 3:10PM|#

When you have animals that have been beaten since birth to toughen 'em up, swam until they nearly drown to make 'em lean, fed gun powder to make 'em mean and in some case shot up with steroids to muscle 'em up � or even just some poor creature that has been chained up and un-socialized it�s entire life - then what you have is an owner that needs to be put down.

I still disagree with just about everything you wrote, but this is something that I could go along with wholeheartedly. It takes a special sort of monster to treat animals or children in this fashion, and I don't see why society should cut them any slack at all.

That being said, all dogs need some sort of training, but when dealing with a dog which, as you said, is capable of biting clear through to bone and not letting go for anything, training is absolutely vital.

|10.21.05 @ 4:06PM|#

That being said, all dogs need some sort of training, but when dealing with a dog which, as you said, is capable of biting clear through to bone and not letting go for anything, training is absolutely vital.

I agree, but does the training have to be sanctioned by the state? I've trained every dog I've owned personally. They aren't going to win any obedience contests, but they are well behaved and socialized.

If one of my dogs attacks someone then I should be held liable. Charge me with negligence, manslaughter or murder - whatever is appropriate - and put down that individual dog.

The law should deal with individual cases, not individual breeds.