Waterloo, Iowa “Pit Bull” Attacks Unsellable, Including 3rd in Almost as Many Weeks
With the third supposed “pit bull” attack in Waterloo, Iowa in as many weeks, discussions about passing breed-specific legislation (BSL) are inevitable if not wholly by design. In what is clearly yet another BSL target city, so-called “pit bull” attacks one after another are not surprising, though their veracity is hard to buy. But the mounting absurdity surrounding the supposed events of these “pit bull” attacks doesn’t keep the forces at work behind the scenes — the maligning media and the inevitable dogsbite.org disciples attempting to push their fake statistics, etc. — from trying to sell the “Big Lie” of the urban mythology of the “pit bull” to Waterloo’s residents.
The first set of attacks, which occurred on Tuesday, Aug. 27, 2013, on 65-year old Vivien Brookman and 13-year old William McNealy, seemed plausible given that Waterloo’s own Animal Control Officer admitted Waterloo has a free-roaming dog problem. Waterloo ACO Maria Tiller acknowledged,
“On the average week, I’ll take 2-3 calls a night,” she says “relating to neglected dogs, dogs running at large or dogs attacking other dogs or even people.”
Right, because again, Waterloo has a free-roaming dog problem. What does that have to do with a specific breed?
I’ve been to eastern Iowa. It is an economically depressed area with many free-roaming dogs of different breeds; a situation which cries out for increased Animal Control enforcement, not passage of additional legislation that Animal Control likewise will be unable to enforce.
The second attack purportedly occurred exactly a week later on Tuesday, Sept. 3, 2013, when a Waterloo police officer tried to corral a free-roaming 10-month old “pit bull” puppy and was bitten. For some reason, that incident reminded me of an incident in June when the sheriff of Clay, Alabama stated he “was approached by a pack of aggressive dogs” which he originally claimed were “pit bulls” but later said he believed to be “Rottweilers, not pit bulls.” It was almost as if Clay had intended to ban “pit bulls” and “pit bull” mixes all along; they were just looking for an excuse. Or maybe they fabricated one.
The third attack in Waterloo supposedly happened Wednesday, Sept. 4, 2013, and is . . . well, just not salable, not to me, and I doubt to anyone with a brain. The Waterloo Cedar Falls Courier (the newspaper responsible for pushing BSL hard in Waterloo and which has been anything but objective in their reporting on these so-called “pit bull” attacks) reported on Saturday that on Wednesday last,
[Margaret] Nevius said she was walking her dog, 10-year-old Feebie, in the area of Hammond and Williston avenues shortly after 7 p.m. The other dog [described by Nevius as a “pit bull”] jumped through an open window of an enclosed porch.
The dog ran up and began attacking Feebie, landing one bite. Feebie took evasive action.
“She kind of body blowed and whirled around. He couldn’t get a hold of her,” Nevius said.
According to Nevius, she ran to the dog’s home to look for the owner, but no one was home. That drew the attacking dog’s attention to her.
“I think it irritated him that I went up to his door,” Nevius said.
A passing motorist in a truck stopped, and people in the vehicle told her and Feebie to climb in while distracting the attacking dog.
. . . The group drove to Nevius’ home, but the dog arrived and waited outside.
“The fight wasn’t done. He inflicted one puncture wound. He tracked my dog to the door,” she said.
The dog left a short time later, and Waterloo Animal Control officials later detained the animal.
Nevius said she supports a zero-tolerance policy for any dog that attacks unprovoked, a rule she would extend to her own dog if it was on the other side of such an incident.
Wow, Ms. Nevius sure is poised and well-spoken for someone supposedly having undergone such an ordeal. It’s interesting too that she knew to use key phrases like “zero-tolerance policy” for “unprovoked” attacks.
Well first let me clarify as I so often do here. There is no such thing as an unprovoked dog attack or a dog attacking without warning, though these are the types of urban myths surrounding “pit bulls” most often told by those who push “pit bull” bans. For instance, the parenting section of a typical question-answer website informs parents of the common signs of an impending dog bite or attack — which can include stiffening, raised hackles, a standing tail, a showing of the whites of the eyes, and of course bared teeth and growling — adding,
“Dogs typically don’t attack without warning. In most cases, dogs are sending subtle cues that signal distress before resorting to an attack.”
Simply because people may be ignorant of the subtle cues that a dog of any breed may give before attacking, doesn’t mean they aren’t there.
Nor do dogs attack “unprovoked.” We as humans may not agree that a dog should have been provoked simply by a person walking a dog in front of another dog’s house, but then dogs of all breeds can be territorial, and perceived trespass on a dog’s territory can be a provocation to a dog. As such, it is up to the human owners of dogs to train them in proper behavior and to contain them.
Second, it is ridiculous that we’re to believe that while Ms. Nevius’ dog was being attacked, that she left her dog and ran to the attacking dog’s house to look for the owner. Why would you do that as your dog was being attacked? You’d try to get your dog away from the other dog. You wouldn’t just leave your dog there to fend for itself.
Third, and this is the most ridiculous of all the ridiculous things we’re expected to believe about this supposed incident: How in the world was the “pit bull” able to follow Ms. Nevius home such that she and the Waterloo Cedar Falls Courier could say, with a straight face, that “The group drove to Nevius’ home, but the dog arrived and waited outside”?
Better yet, how was the “pit bull” able to beat Ms. Nevius and her dog to her own front door in the truck they were in such that she could say the attacking dog “tracked my dog to the door”? What, did the “pit bull” have a navigation device in the car he was driving? Or did he simply look up Ms. Nevius’ address on his Blackberry?
Honestly, to ascribe some kind of preternatural retributive cognizance to a dog such that he could not only track you to your house after he attacked you, but beat you there though he was on paw and you were in a vehicle? I mean, I know people lie, but usually when they do they try to stay in the ballpark of believability!
Nazi Minister of Propaganda Joseph Goebbels once said, “If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it.” Is that true Waterloo? Do you believe it?
Related Posts By Category
- Waterloo, Iowa “Pit Bull” Attacks Will Stop When Waterloo is No Longer a BSL Target
- Waterloo, Iowa is Apparently No Longer a BSL Target; Will Outlandish Attacks Stop?
- City Attorney Stirs the Pot, Camanche, Iowa to Look at “Pit Bull” Ban, BSL Again
- Waterloo, Iowa to Consider BSL Via “Pit Bull” Restrictions
- Medford, Oregon “Pit Bulls” “Attack” as Medford Just So Happens to be Considering Pit Bull Ban