Dallas woman dies after being mauled by pack of dogs in city

[Eugene]

Source: Reuters

World | Tue May 10, 2016 1:05pm EDT

Dallas woman dies after being mauled by pack of dogs in city

DALLAS | BY LISA MARIA GARZA

A 52-year-old woman bitten more than 100 times by a pack of dogs last week in a Dallas neighborhood has died, the county medical examiner said on Tuesday.

Antoinette Brown, a grandmother who had served in the U.S. Army, died on Monday, a week after Dallas police said she was mauled by dogs who ripped off her flesh.

She had been in a medically induced coma, with bandages covering exposed tendons and muscles, police said.

[font size=1]-snip-[/font]

Dallas police said they did not find any dogs around Brown when they arrived at the scene but animal control officers later took custody of six canines from a nearby home that were suspected of attacking Brown.

[font size=1]-snip-[/font]

Read more: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-dallas-dogs-idUSKCN0Y12A0

[jonno99]

1. Just horrible! RIP...

[msongs]

2. let's thank the do gooders who think dogs are more important than people nt

[haele]

7. Sounds like you should thank the idiots who let their dogs run loose from the house.

"animal control officers later took custody of six canines from a nearby home that were suspected of attacking Brown."
1) Dogs will run in packs. That's their nature - even when I had just one dog (Shari of happy memory), if she was around other dogs, she'd follow the pack - or she'd become prey to the pack.
2) Packs will do whatever the alpha dog does. I've seen it at dog parks when there's too many clueless dog owners - a pack of four to five will develop, and if the alpha in the pack is particularly prey-motivated, the pack will go go hunting smaller dogs. At dog parks, you don't typically get more than four or five in a pack, as the more conscientious owners will start to get involved, but there's always those two or three owners who think they can control their dogs - but don't. The dog is the alpha, or the dog doesn't recognize the owner as an alpha.

It has nothing to do with dogs more important than people. It has everything to do with people that have taken ownership of predators being responsible and capable of controlling their predators.

The owners of those dogs need to be charged with manslaughter at the least, maybe more if they were allowing their dogs to roam because they were more concerned about their personal "tough image" and enjoyed terrorizing the neighborhood.

Haele

[Orrex]

10. For some time, my feeling has been...

that the owner(s) of a dog that commits an attack should be charged as though he or she had committed the attack him or herself.

[inanna]

21. Excellent post!

Thank you.

[whatthehey]

9. They're certainly less murderous

80 million dogs, 30 people annually killed by them.


320 million people, 14000 killed by them.


117 times safer with dogs than humans.

[Orrex]

12. That's only because we restrict their gun ownership

[whatthehey]

15. I'm sure meant whimsically, but even so still stands

We average about 780 murders with body-only "bare hands", so still many times more dangerous than dogs.

[Orrex]

16. When a functional, autonomous person commits a crime...

No one credibly blames it on someone else. Contrast that with every single case of a dog attack, with a dozen dog defenders quickly stepping up to put the blame solely and squarely on the dog's owner.

DU is also awash in advocates who insist that dogs are "better" than humans, even if you yourself haven't expressed that view. Well, we've subjected dogs to a eugenics program spanning millennia, so I'd certainly hope that we've bred desirable traits into them by now.

[Coventina]

20. However, we cannot change the fact that they are wolves.

Domesticated wolves, but still wolves.

This means that they WILL form and then hunt in packs, left to their own devices.

That does not make them "bad" or "evil" that is what nature evolved them to do.

What is "bad" or "evil" is allowing an animal for which you are responsible to kill or maim an innocent bystander.

[Orrex]

22. It would seem that we're basically on the same page

What I reject is the notion often espoused on DU (though, again, not by you) that dogs are innocent regardless of their actions, or that they are only driven to violence by bad humans.

I agree that the owners must be held responsible, and I've noted in this thread and elsewhere that IMO the owner should be charged as though he or she had inflicted the injuries him- or herself.

[whatthehey]

29. Yet I doubt you would accept

that humans are merely domesticated troglodytes, and that they WILL club women over the head to get mates given the chance. Because in the intervening tens of thousands of years we have done far far more selective breeding and training of dogs for specific traits than we have people, with the result that their intrinsic nature has changed far more than ours.

[Coventina]

30. Well, there you would be wrong. I'm actually quite the pessimist when it comes to human nature.

I've experienced plenty of situations in my life where the troglodyte behavior you describe has taken place.

Human beings are naked apes, and civilization is a very fragile thing.

[whatthehey]

24. People blame the parents whenever young folks commit crimes

Dogs simply don't have the mental faculties of adult humans, and are the result of their care and training just like children. I don't necessarily assume dogs are blameless, and some like some children are vicious little bastards despite well-meaning attempts to train them, but it is wildly absurd fantasy to imagine any kind of widespread significant risk from dogs of any breed. There's not a single time I wouldn't be more relaxed hearing 4 feet behind me in the proverbial dark alley than two however. You are much more likely to be killed falling out of bed, and about as likely by cows (how many times do most of us encounter those compared to dogs?) as you are by dogs.

As to "better" it depends on the criterion. Dogs have many advantages over humans and many disadvantages. Were I to be stripped foever of the companionship of either, it would at my time of life be a tough call. I'd prefer to have both stick around.

[Orrex]

25. You'll note that I specified a functional, autonomous human

That would exclude a child, for instance.

I also stipulated that no one credibly blames another person. That would exclude bullshit defenses about "affluenza" and the like.

[whatthehey]

28. By any criterion which excludes human children, there is no such thing then

as a functional autonomous dog, so they are surely similarly exculpated.

[Orrex]

33. Well, it goes both ways.

My ongoing complaint (in this thread and elsewhere) is about the overwhelming tendency to attribute better-than-human virtue to these products of millennial eugenics.

I'm comfortable with the notion that dogs can be excused from guilt if dogs' advocates are willing to dismiss dogs' perceived nobility as well.

Further, a dog simply doesn't have the same rights as a human child, at least not according to many centuries of law. With that in mind, there is a lesser burden of rehabilitation when dealing with a dangerous dog.

Alternatively, if a juvenile old human commits a crime, he might be locked up for years, presumed exculpability notwithstanding. So when a juvenile dog mauls someone to death, let's lock up the dog for a few years as well. Sauce for the goose.

[Orrex]

27. That's not the right way to look at those numbers, by the way

It's not "raw number of dogs" versus "raw number of humans," but rather "extent of interaction with dogs versus extent of interaction with dogs."

In the past six months, I would guess conservatively that I've interacted with humans somewhere upward of 2500 hours, between work and home and leisure. In that same period, I've interacted with dogs a total of, at most, twelve minutes.

I admit that I'm likely on the low end of dog interaction, but that's a ratio of 1:12500.

So if the ratio of dog kills:human kills is 1:117, I believe that means I'm 106X more likely to be killed by a dog.

Holy shit! Somebody lock these beasts away!

[braddy]

3. ""In response to the mauling, Dallas Mayor Mike Rawlings told local media the problem of roaming dog

packs in a few impoverished parts of the city had gotten out of hand and called for stepped up efforts to control the animals."

That was also true for Dallas in the mid 70s, that was the only time that I have seen dog packs become a problem in a city.

I was in door to door sales and it was an issue that I had never run into before and haven't seen since, but the neighborhood residents said that after dark the dog packs were a real threat, and it sure felt like one, when you see and hear them, and know that they exist and watch them working up courage as they watch and study you, it sure is a strange new element for city living.

I had always assumed that would have been taken care of over the last 40 years.

[ScreamingMeemie]

31. Dog packs have been a problem in Detroit for years.

In the 80s, when my father worked downtown off Jefferson, he would keep a box of milkbones and a bag of food in the back of his car... Equal parts helping the dogs and keeping them from a potential attack. It's no joke.

The numbers have been grossly exaggerated, but the problem exists.

[braddy]

32. A dog attack is a terrible way to go, cities shouldn't tolerate this at all.

[linuxman]

4. I'm guessing they weren't Labs and Golden retrievers...

[Coventina]

5. If it's a feral pack, all bets are off.

ANY dog, once it identifies with a pack, will attack as part of the group.

Having said that, it is less likely that packs of Labs and Goldens have been abandoned to their own survival.

[linuxman]

6. It says they were taken from a house later by animal control.

The type of person who lets a pack of six dogs run wild in their neighborhood usually isn't the type to raise Corgis. Just saying.

[Coventina]

8. Oh yeah, I think there's a very high probability these are some sort of bully breed.

The kind that "tough guys" have, but don't bother to train or control.

I just felt the need to point out that small and/or "gentle" dogs have been known to run in vicious packs as well.

For awhile, after the chihuahua craze had died off, parts of our city had feral packs of chihuahuas that had been abandoned by their owners. In spite of their size, they were quite vicious and dangerous to other pets and children.

[haele]

11. When I was a child, there was a feral pack lead by a St. Bernard in a neighborhood park.

Two Labs, a Dalmatian, and a couple Shepard mixes. This was a big park, with a ravine and all sorts of thicket type hiding places for the homeless, lost pets or abandoned animals and assorted small wildlife.
That pack was responsible for the death of three small dogs, two cats, and the mauling of a three-year old before they caught the St. Bernard. After that, the pack sort of disappeared; the rest of the dogs just sort of paired off and were eventually caught.

This was back in the 70's before the pit-bull paranoia had developed. When I was growing up, the default deadly dog was not a bull-terrier or fighting dog; it was any medium to large dog that was running wild or otherwise wasn't controlled.

Haele

[Coventina]

13. I remember when the "demon dog" in the media was always a Doberman.

Now that I've actually been personally acquainted with one, I don't understand that at all!

And of course, Cujo was a St. Bernard. (Although, in his defense, he had rabies).

The truth is, any medium-large dog can be deadly under the right circumstances.

Forming a pack makes for a guaranteed lethal weapon. There's a reason wolves hunt in packs: it's effective. And dogs have not forgotten that.

[whatthehey]

18. Oh yeah. Shepherds and Rottweilers had their turns too

Horror films tell idiots which breeds other idiots are scared of so they can parrot the hype. Zoltan was a mutant Dobie, Max (from the darkly funny Man's Best Friend) was a Mastiff. It was a Shepherd who pestered Colonel Trautmann in Devil Dog, Rottweilers were scary enough a while back to just use the breed name as a movie title, but now it's pit bulls. Wonder when their big B movie day in the sun gets here?

[alcibiades_mystery]

14. They took time off from nannying small children to rip this woman to shreds

[Major Nikon]

17. This is a local story here. It took animal control 4 days to show up after repeated calls.

They might never have shown up if this didn't make the nightly news.

[lpbk2713]

23. Someone should have checked at the local donut shop.

But then, the local LEOs they were having coffee with would have rousted
whoever wanted to make a report for interfering with the duties ...

[hamsterjill]

19. If Dallas is like San Antonio, roaming packs are becoming more common.

San Antonio is in the midst of trying to become "no kill".

Please understand that I am an animal lover and I want nothing more than for every companion animal to have a loving home, proper care, and respect.

In San Antonio, at least, the City is trying to appear that it has reached "no kill" without actually becoming "no kill". You see, "no kill" is defined as 90% of the healthy, adoptable dogs and cats making it out of the city pound. But what this has become is a numbers game. The City of San Antonio publishes many fluff media pieces and feel good stories that it has reached no kill status, but in all reality, it is failing to address the very large numbers of dogs that roam the streets. If the City doesn't pick up and impound these dogs, then the dogs are not counted against the City's statistics that make up that magical 90% number.

We have a growing problem because of irresponsible people. It is not a dog's fault that a dog acts like a dog. The fault lies on the irresponsible owners who get a puppy, and then when that puppy grows up and isn't as cute anymore, requires actual manual labor to care for, whines, barks, pukes, poops, etc., they throw it out to fend for itself. The City needs to go after these "owners" and hit their pocket books. Because the same owner that throws one out will have another one in a week or two, and the cycle repeats itself over and over and over again. The roaming dogs breed unrestrained, they are hit by cars, they kill, they spread disease, and they break your heart.

But, it's all about making the public feel good that San Antonio is a "no kill" city.

Rest assured that there are many, many small, independent rescue groups working in San Antonio to promote spay/neuter and to rescue and rehome as many dogs as possible. There are drives during winter months for dog houses to give to dogs that don't have any shelter whatsoever. There are food drives, and there are rabies clinics. But until the City itself steps up and does something about these irresponsible owners (i.e., fine them, etc. - which rescue groups do not have the authority to do obviously), it is a never ending, growing problem.

[snagglepuss]

26. How horrible. May she rest in peace.