Pit Bull Attack in Shorewood

Home Forums Open Discussion Pit Bull Attack in Shorewood

  • This topic contains 0 voices and has 36 replies.
Viewing 25 posts - 1 through 25 (of 37 total)
  • Author
  • #606269



    This happened January 14th and the dog is still on the loose so everyone please be careful and very watchful for this dog.

    Here is a weblink for the story KOMO TV just aired on this attack:




    i expected a pit on the loose story here..

    but was surprised to find that the owner did have his dog on a lead…

    what he did’t have was his dog under control

    if you just watch the video you will miss something troubling

    “People stopped and called 911, but the pit bull and his owner took off as soon as the attack was over. A witness followed them to a nearby church, where deputies eventually questioned the man. Unfortunately, the deputies were called away before animal control could arrive. When they did get there, the man and his dog were gone”

    what i want to know is why the deputies considered this only a matter for animal control?

    is there no citation that could have been issued at the scene against the owner of this dog?



    This is so sad. :( My dog was attacked and almost killed by an off leash pit in Redmond 10 years ago. The owners (who laughed as their dog was attacking mine despite several witnesses and I trying to get the dog to let go) also took off. The police would not do anything at the time, and animal control would only take a statement.


    Hi JoB. I guess only animal control can cite an owner for a dog bite? Police should be able to in my opinion. I hear it’s $150.00 plus the dog gets quarantined for 10 days.

    How much longer is this sort of thing going to go on? The lack of accountability and the injuries inflicted have been going on for decades and are both totally unacceptable!



    That is just awful. Poor dog.



    I was attacked/threatened by a loose pitbull—though not injured—and it was one of the scariest things that’s ever happened to me…and I’ve always owned and loved dogs. It also made me furious.

    Pro-pitbull people always talk about the “bad rap” pitbulls get and the “misconceptions” people have against them, but the fact is, they are only well-behaved and sweet toward their owners/families. Toward people they consider a threat they are killing machines. And it can be you, your kid, your elderly parents, or your own dog. And once they decide to attack, there is no way they can be controlled, not even by their owners.

    A few months ago the West Seattle Herald’s “pet of the week” featured a bull terrier that was being fed ham-hock bones to “get his jaw muscles in shape”. It was written as if it was cute! Am I the only one that finds this appalling? What other reason does a dog need strengthened jaw muscles for but as in training to kill?

    Dog breeds that were specifically bred as attack or killing animals should not be allowed as pets. There are plenty of other non-aggressive breeds to choose from. You won’t get rid of all dog attacks, but it’s a place to start.




    “Pro-pitbull people always talk about the “bad rap” pitbulls get and the “misconceptions” people have against them, but the fact is, they are only well-behaved and sweet toward their owners/families. Toward people they consider a threat they are killing machines.”

    Strong words. That’s pretty much the opposite experience I have with pitbulls. It would be interesting if you had some well researched study to back-up something as inflammatory as that.

    For the record, I’m not a pitbull owner.




    Any dog breed can be dangerous, after searching under banned dog breeds in Washington State here are the results:

    Washington breed-specific laws ::

    If you know of a pit bull ordinance that is not listed here, please send us a link to the ordinance or published news article so that we can update this web page: ordinance@dogsbite.org.

    Dangerous dog ordinances

    Pit Bull Ordinances in Washington

    City Website

    View Ordinance

    Type of Ordinance


    Section: 6.35

    Fighting breeds declared “potentially dangerous” including: Akita, American Pit Bull Terrier, American Staffordshire Terrier, Bull Terrier, Cane Corso, Dogo Argentino, Dogue de Bordeaux, Kuvasz, Pit Bull Terrier, Presa Canario, Staffordshire Bull Terrier, Tosa Inu


    Section: 6.10.20

    Bans: pit bulls


    Section: 6.10.020

    Bans: pit bulls


    Section: 9.30.090

    Bans: pit bulls


    Section: 6.10.020

    Bans: pit bulls


    Section: 8.08.010

    Pit bulls and rottweilers declared “potentially dangerous”


    Section: 7.08

    Bans: pit bulls


    Section: 6.08.010

    Pit bulls declared “potentially dangerous” | 1987 legal notes


    Section: 6.08.020

    Restricts: pit bulls


    Section: 6.06.010

    Pit bulls declared “dangerous”


    Section: 8:02.320

    Pit bulls declared “potentially dangerous”


    Section: 6.04.010

    Pit bulls declared “dangerous”


    Section: 8.02.320

    Pit bulls declared “potentially dangerous”


    Section: 6.40.010

    Pit bulls declared “potentially dangerous”


    Section: 8.06.010

    Pit bulls declared “potentially dangerous”


    Section: 6.06.010

    Bans: pit bulls


    Section: 6.04.020

    Pit bulls declared “potentially dangerous”


    Animal control

    Bans: pit bulls

    Royal City

    Section: 6.04.020

    Bans: pit bulls and rottweilers


    Section: 6.05.120

    Pit bulls declared “dangerous”


    Section: 5.07.080

    Bans: pit bulls


    Section: 6.02.045

    Bans: pit bulls


    Section: 6.06

    Pit bulls declared “dangerous”


    News article

    Bans: pit bulls, rottweilers, mastiffs, and American bulldogs.


    Section: 6-18

    Bans: pit bulls



    I’ve been around a lot of dogs, only bitten by one though, a pit bull. SHA also bans them.



    Yeah, I read the dogs bite website too. Seemed pretty biased against certain dogs or dogs in general. Not one positive section on the entire website. That’s when I decided to go to the Humaine Society’s website. Real and thoughtful discussion on the topic that I linked to above. Here’s an excerpt I think fits into the discussion pretty well:

    “Banning one breed just creates demand for a new “killer” dog

    Two decades ago, pit bull types and Rottweilers (the most recent breeds targeted) attracted little to no public concern. At that time, it was the Doberman pinscher who was being vilified. In 2001, few people had heard of the Presa Canario breed involved in the tragic, fatal attack on Diane Whipple in California in January of that year. Now that breed is being sought by individuals who desire the new “killer dog.”

    Unfortunately, the “problem dog” at any given time is often the most popular breed among individuals who tend to be irresponsible, if not abusive, in the control and keeping of their pets. Simply put, if you ban one breed, individuals will just move on to another one. Banning a breed only speeds up the timetable.

    Breed bans create new problems:

    Communities that have banned specific breeds have discovered that it has not been the easy answer they thought it would be. In some areas, media hype has actually increased the demand for dogs whose breed is in danger of being banned. Furthermore, animal control agencies, even those that are well funded and equipped, have found the laws to be an enforcement nightmare.

    Breed bans don’t address the problem:

    Restrictions placed on a specific breed fail to address the larger problems of abuse, aggression training, and irresponsible dog ownership. Again, breed alone is not an adequate indicator of a dog’s propensity to bite. Rather, a dog’s tendency to bite is a product of several factors, including, but not limited, to:

    Early socialization, or lack thereof, of the dog to people.

    Sound obedience training to help the dog recognize where he or she “fits” with regard to dominance and people, or mistraining for fighting or increased aggression.

    Genetic makeup, including breed and strains within a breed.

    Quality of care and supervision by the owner (is the dog part of the family or is she kept chained outside?).

    Current levels of socialization of the dog with his or her human family.

    Behavior of the victim.

    Whether the dog has been spayed or neutered.”


    I should say attacked/mauled. Bitten is too tame.



    A pitbull is a loaded gun with a one year olds brain. It’s not that they are all bad. Its the fact that they can inflict deadly force. Especially with bad owners, if they feel threatened or if they “perceive” their masters to be threatened. Any rational human would want stiffer regulation (if not an outright ban) for animals capable of inflicting gross bodily harm to a human (and have demonstrated consistently that they will).



    ok Diane, you are sooo wrong about this.

    As a former Rotti (she died) owner and a full and pit mix, I take full offense to your comments.


    I rescued a 2-3 week old PIT BULL. I had a friend foster (bottle feed) it and it is now a wonderful 5 month old sweetie. Would not harm a fly, he hangs with cats AND a small breed dog.

    Now my OWN pit was ABUSED by kids and guess she doesn’t like kids. SO since I am a responsible dog owner she does not go around kids. Remember the kids abused her so that was NOT HER FAULT.

    My Pit mix,(80 lbs) well she let 2 thieves in my house with out hurting them. SO needless to say she is NOT aggressive.

    Sadly you don’t hear about the small breed attacks because they are not as “harsh” just little bites.

    I did not see the “pet of the week”, but you are right a ham hock should have not been displayed, but raw bones are very good for ALL DOGS TEETH. plus a bull terrier is a not the same at a pit bull terrier.

    There is a post on the blog right now for a pit mix that needs to be rehomed. That is not that good with kids under 7,(as she is playful), cats especially if they run, and needs to be around submissive dogs. So are you going to blame the dog or the owner of that dog?

    Dog breed bans do not work. AS for the animal control issue. It is a catch 22, personally the officers should NOT have left that guy alone. I guess even they think it was that not that big of deal, or some thing more important came up. I don’t know that part. Animal control, had they gotten there in time., would have taken the dog in to their custody, and quarantined it for 10 days and asked for proof of rabies vaccines. Then it depends on what the owner of the dog would have had wanted to do and to make some decisions.

    Lions, tiger and bears should NOT be allowed as pets. Dogs, all dogs are fine as long as the owner is responsible and knows how to handle that dog of any breed.

    There are specific breeds that are better for police work a Belgian Malinois, German Shepards and Rotties, they are TRAINED to be aggressive. Again see, I say TRAINED. They are NOT using Pit bulls and they too are an “aggressive dog.” HMMM





    here is a thread about the pit bull puppy that was rescued AND my pit who is cleaning/playing with a kitten


    Again it is all about how you raise them





    Al large dogs can inflict deadly force.

    Let’s remember, dogs are pack animals and if they feel their owner or “pack leader” is being attacked or harmed, it will instinctively protect it. This is not a pit bull trait exclusively.

    As hammerhead said very astutely, it’s the owner, not the dog that is the problem. Owners need to train their dogs, socialize them with humans at an early age, give them attention and exercise and discourage any aggressive tendencies toward any other animal, including (especially) humans.

    This is what is NOT happening far too often in our society. Neglecting these ABSOLUTELY MANDATORY steps is what leads to what we consider bad behavior in these animals. The whole pitbull are bad thing is because people who want aggressive dogs have bought into the idea that these dogs are nothing but aggressive bad-asses and treat/train them as such. It’s not the breed, it’s the idiot owners that have given the breed a bad name.

    Now, if you see a pitbull, unfortunately there’s likely a higher chance that it will behave aggressively than if you see a pengkinese because not as many people treat pengkinese like a fighting animal. But, I guarantee you if you did, that little thing would be a terror who would go out and bite everything it could. And just like the pitbull, it would be a crying shame, and just as disgusting.



    So it is ok to ban pit bulls or any “aggressive” breed but god forbid banning an actual assault weapon which causes WAY more harm than any pit bull.

    Please note I am very sorry that another dog was injured.




    But, just as it would not be the fault of the pitbull, it would not be the pengkinese’s fault either.



    true that WorldCitizen:)



    We have gone round and round on the WSB about this subject. Instead of regurgitating the falsehoods you hear, how about doing as WorldCitizen and researching the facts from a reputable source? Or doing as Hammerhead and gain personal experience and knowledge? If it had been another breed involved, I guarantee it would not have been mentioned in the headline. “Pit bull” is practically an inflammatory phrase these days, I dare say purposely used in this headline to get people’s blood up. Something terrible happened and the breed is of no matter. What we are witnessing is the difference between a dog raised with care and one raised with negligence and abuse. It is the owner that is the source of the problem and therefore these cases would be better handled by the police, not animal control. What that dog needs is to be rescued, not quarantined and for the owner to be punished and banned from owning pets.



    @hammerhead, its not the gun its the owner…its not the pitbull its the owner. Same logic. For one we call for regulation (lately)…the other…



    EdSane, yes I know it is the same logic trust me.

    It is just that it easier to ban a breed than a gun, because people feel their “rights” are being taken away.?

    You are right there is no difference, both can hurt, maim, kill some one.




    The same logic, yes, but with the gun a perpetrator can mow down many, where as with the dog the victim is usually but one..and rarely death follows.

    Not that this is an especially groovy distinction, but one that should be made.

    I would also like to say that a gun isn’t exactly the same thing as a dog, but the owners of both should most definitely be held accountable. And if they are mentally unfit to handle either responsibly, they should not be allowed to do so.



    Read about this on the b-town blog a couple days ago. Apparently its the man that panhandles with his dog @ WWV near the McDonalds.



    @hh, as with firearms. I’m not for an outright ban, but reasonable legislation in regards to ownership. i.e. muzzling animals in public, stiffer fines and jail time (mandatory) for owners who’s dogs escape and maim or injure. As well as jail time and fines for those who fail to register/license dogs considered “dangerous”…Personally, I own a german shepherd chow mix. With owning a larger dog, there comes a greater responsibility then say a pug. Especially when it comes to the life and safety of my community.

Viewing 25 posts - 1 through 25 (of 37 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
WP-Backgrounds by InoPlugs Web Design and Juwelier Schönmann