More dog attack deaths fuel alarm in South Africa, Australia, Ireland

(Beth Clifton collage)

Why is death-by-dog accepted as punishment for even innocent & accidental trespass?

MOGWASE, South Africa; GREENBANK, Australia; DUBLIN, Ireland––Two December 3, 2022 dog attack fatalities resulting from use of high-risk dogs as alleged crime deterrents, and a new investigative report about pit bull breeding in Ireland, have further fueled rising demands for stricter dog laws in three nations.

None of the legislative proposals, however, as yet address the practice of leaving potentially deadly dogs unattended to “protect” private property.

This is, however, among the most common causes of fatal and disfiguring injury to innocent passers-by, as well as to others who approach such “protected” properties unawares, to deliver mail and parcels, share public notices, visit friends, or pursue other legitimate activity.

(See Drivers Jamie Burnam & Pam Rock, killed by dogs, exemplify rising trend.)

(Merritt Clifton collage)

Mantraps are illegal but deadly dogs are not

No civilized nation penalizes trespassing, burglary, nor any other crime, by setting dogs on the alleged offender, let alone without a trial.

Applying similar logic, that an alleged deterrent should not impose a punishment more severe than courts would apply to a convicted offender, more than 100 nations have banned the use of steel-jawed mantraps, many of which later extended the bans to the use of leghold traps to catch animals.

But releasing dangerous dogs to patrol property and maul suspected trespassers, in absence of human supervision, remains broadly accepted and usually legal worldwide, more than 60 years since the advent of inexpensive closed circuit television monitoring systems linked to burglar alarms.

ANIMALS 24-7 has confirmed through more than 40 years of logging fatal and disfiguring dog attacks that the use of dangerous dogs as purported crime deterrents kills and disfigures the innocent hundreds of times more often than “guard dogs” harm people trespassing with criminal intent.

Dog attack fatality victim in South Africa

Floyd Metsileng.
(Beth Clifton collage)

Two “guard dog” fatalities in one day

The most recent fatalities resulting from the use of dangerous dogs to patrol private property came only hours apart, in the early hours of the same Saturday morning about 45 miles northwest of Pretoria, South Africa, and at about 10:45 in the morning 25 miles south of Brisbane, Australia.

Floyd Metsileng, 39, a platinum mine worker at the Dishaba open pit mine #44, spent Friday night drinking with friends at a local tavern.

Reported Alfonso Nqunjana for News24, “It is understood the tavern owner had closed for the night and unleashed his dogs at the property.

“Police spokesperson Lieutenant Colonel Amanda Funani said Floyd Metsileng was a patron of the tavern,” Nqunjana narrated.

“When the time came to close the tavern, the owner did so. He allegedly alerted the people to leave, closed, and left the premises. It is alleged that the owner unleashed his dogs, as he normally does, after closing,” she said.

Mogwase near Rustenburg in the North West.

Floyd Metsileng. (Beth Clifton collage)

Returned to the tavern, or fell asleep, locked inside?

Funani alleged that Metsileng then returned to the tavern.

“He climbed over the wall and a dog [a pit bull] attacked him. Ambulance and police were called. The man was certified dead at the scene. We registered an inquest. Police are still investigating,” Funani said.

“Following this report by the police, the community contradicted the police,” updated Lucky Nkuyane of OFM. “One of the community members, who has since shared a voice note describing the incident, alleges that the deceased had fallen asleep around a certain area within the premises.”

Closed-circuit video posted to Facebook showed two pit bulls mauling Metsileng, who appeared to be walking toward the front door from an outdoor drinking area when attacked from behind.

Capetown, South Africa shante and pit bulls.

(Beth Clifton collage)

“We do not rehome aggressive animals”

Continued Nqunjana of News24, “The Rustenburg Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals confirmed that when they arrived at the scene, the owner of the pit bulls [presumably also the owner of the tavern] surrendered both dogs to the organization.”

National SPCA of South Africa special investigations unit spokesperson Nazareth Appalsamy told Nqunjana that both pit bulls were euthanized.

“NSPCA policy is that we do not rehome aggressive animals,” Appalsamy said, “so we had no choice but to euthanize the dogs.”

Originally from Saulsport, a nearby community, Metsileng had attended the well-regarded J.M. Ntsime High School in Rustenburg before beginning work as a miner.

Four South African children killed by pit bulls.

From left to right: Keketso Saule, 3, Olebogeng Mosime, 8, Storm Nuku, 10, and Reuben van der Nescht, 15 months.
(Beth Clifton collage)

Five pit bull victims in less than a month

Metsileng was the fifth South African pit bull victim in less than a month. His death followed those of eight-year-old Olebogeng Mosime on November 12, 2022 in Bloemfontein, three-year-old Keketso Innocent Saule on November 20, 2022 in Hennenman, fifteen-month-old Reuben le Roux on November 23, 2022 in East London, and 37-year-old Zimkhitha Brenda Gaga on November 27, 2022 in Port Alfred.

Altogether, of 99 dogs involved in fatal attacks in South Africa since 2004, 72 have been pit bulls.

Of 56 victims of fatal dog attacks in South Africa since 2004, 38 were killed by pit bulls. The 18 other fatal attacks included seven by rabid dogs, and not more than four by any other breed of dog.

(See “We can’t live like this in a world where dogs eat children”, Baby is 3rd South African killed by pit bull in 9 days; calls for ban rise, and Pit bull attacks inflame pit bull lynchings in South African shantytowns.)

Kane Minion owned a pit bull himself.
(Beth Clifton collage)

Meter reader killed on the job

Kane Minion, 42, a meter reader of seven years’ experience, “was attacked while trying to read an electrical meter at a property on Ison Road in the Logan suburb of Greenbank,” recounted Australia Broadcasting Company reporter Matt Eaton.

“The owners of the property were not at home at the time.”

Elaborated Rohan Smith for News.com.au, “A bandog bullmastiff and a Rhodesian ridgeback cross attacked the Energex worker in the front yard of the home. He was found unconscious in the front yard of the property with critical injuries. He died at the scene despite efforts to save him.”

.”Minion’s Facebook profile shows him cuddling a Staffordshire bull terrier,” Smith added. “It also reveals he became engaged on December 24, 2021 to his long-term partner.”

Minion apparently tried to read the meter at the property even though the presence of the dogs who killed him had been reported to Energex and should have been known to him.

Greenbank, Australia, where Kane Minion died. (Beth Clifton collage)

Child killed by Rottweiler & a cattle dog

Minion was killed four days short of a month after two-year-old Jyedon Pollard was fatally mauled by a Rottweiler and a cattle dog kept at the Country Gardens Motor Inn in Cowra, New South Wales.

Takisha “Kesha” Pollard, mother of Jyedon Pollard, was reportedly in the process of moving into the Country Gardens Motor Inn as a housing authority placement while Jyedon’s father Brayden O’Hanlon, 24, was jailed facing charges including car theft, breaking and entering, assault, and larceny.

Jyedon Pollard, age 2.

“Jyedon was riding his scooter out the front of their room and Kesha went inside to get him a drink,” his uncle Robert told media. “In that split second, the dogs either jumped over the gate or ran out after it was left.”

Motel owner Matt McIIIhatton rushed Jyedon and Takisha Pollard to the nearest hospital, but Jyeden had already suffered fatal bites to his face and neck.

Discrepancies in published accounts included a claim that Jyeden had ventured into the dogs’ pen to play with them, and that Takisha Pollard left him momentarily to get a drink for his five-year-old sister.

(Beth Clifton collage)

“Beefed-up pit bull crossbreed dogs”

Meanwhile in Ireland, where Alejandro Miszan, nine, of Enniscorthy, County Wexford, was on November 27, 2022 permanently facially disfigured by a pit bull, Shane Doran of Extra revealed on December 4, 2022 that “Beefed-up pit bull crossbreed dogs similar to the one who savaged a nine-year-old boy this week are advertised as ‘family and child-friendly pets’ by breeders who are registered and fully approved by the Department of Agriculture.

(See Disfiguring pit bull attack on child spurs calls for stronger Irish dog law.)

“The dogs – which one breeder described as being like ‘a pit bull on steroids’ and ‘all muscle’ – weigh up to 65 kilograms and are listed for sale on one website at up to €20,000,” Doran said.

Jeffrey Mfini rescued this ear-cropped pit bull from dogfighters.

Illegally ear-cropped but no enforcement

“Pictures of the XL Bullies on the home page of one breeder’s website clearly show the animals’ ears have been cropped,” Doran continued.

“Ear cropping is illegal in Ireland but there is no law here yet against owning a dog with cropped ears,” Doran noted.

“The Dublin Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals has unequivocally stated that the XL Bullies as well as the American bulldog breeds ‘are not domestic pets,’” Doran added.

Beth, Merritt, & Teddy Clifton.

“Animal welfare workers said they have been providing the department with adverts and contact details of rogue breeders for the past two years,” Doran finished, “but to no avail.”

Please donate to support our work:

www.animals24-7.org/donate/

Merritt Clifton says

December 6, 2022 at 11:02 pm

Unfortunately, Janice, while that author (Sandra Swart) makes a pretense of offering “balance” by acknowledging some of the history of pit bulls, the article in question as a whole is blatant pit bull advocacy, including many thoroughgoing misrepresentations and distortions of fact.

Pit bulls, for example, were scarcely a British invention, and bull-and-bear baiting was only one side of the ancestry of the pit bulls imported to South Africa, chiefly from the U.S., during the apartheid years. Swart makes no reference to the Spanish side of pit bull ancestry (e.g. Presa Canario and “Cuban bloodhound”), nor to the centuries of use of pit bulls by conquistadores, slave traders, and hunters of escaped slaves.

Continues Swart: “Breed-specific legislation is being strongly pushed for…But history suggests it simply does not work…After several maulings in the 1980s, the U.K. imposed legislation in 1991 banning pit bulls but the number of dog bites stayed the same – as was the case in different counties in the U.S. People simply bought other vicious breeds.”

In truth the U.K. did NOT ban pit bulls. It banned the “American pit bull terrier,” Japanese tosa, Dogo Argentino, and Fila Brasiliero, all “foreign” breeds, but exempted “Staffordshires,” “American bulldogs,” “American bullies,” and every other pit bull variant not specifically designated an “American pit bull terrier.” The outcome, predictably, was an explosion of attacks by pit bulls called by many other common names for essentially the same dog. The fatalities are listed by breed here: Pit bull kills trainer as U.K. groups seek repeal of Dangerous Dogs Act 1991.

People did not simply buy other breeds. As Swart admits, “A banned breed can simply be renamed something else and the danger continues.” That is exactly what happened. An effective pit bull ban would have banned the pit bull head and body type altogether, regardless of nation of origin and name by which the dog is called.

Swart goes on to recite several further commonly claimed falsehoods: “Moreover, breed-specific legislation ignores behavioral and other biological aspects: the aggressive dogs are much more likely to be male, be intact (unneutered), and most likely to be unsocialized (including kept on a chain usually) or actively encouraged in aggression. So this legislation is both over-inclusive (it includes lots of gentle dogs) and under-inclusive (it misses a lot of vicious dogs).”

Indeed, because the sterilization rate for pit bulls is only about 20%, compared to circa 80% for other dogs, most pit bulls (regardless of gender) who kill and disfigure people have not been sterilized. But more than 60 pit bulls who were not only sterilized but had passed behavioral screening by animal shelters prior to adoption have killed or disfigured Americans in the present century. Clearly, neither sterilization nor behavioral screening makes pit bulls significantly safer.

In fact, pit bulls who have been rehomed appear to kill people more often than pit bulls who are still in their birth homes.

Further, while some pit bulls who have harmed people have been kept chained, more than two-thirds of pit bulls inflicting fatal or disfiguring attacks have been kept as household pets, have attacked members of the household or invited visitors, and have been described by their owners as “gentle” until suddenly they were not.

Comments

Janice Cox says
December 6, 2022 at 10:10 am
Here is an interesting and balanced article by a South African historian: https://www.dailymaverick.co.za/article/2022-12-04-pit-bull-attacks-in-south-africa-a-historian-sheds-light-on-the-issues/
- Merritt Clifton says
  December 6, 2022 at 11:02 pm
  Unfortunately, Janice, while that author (Sandra Swart) makes a pretense of offering “balance” by acknowledging some of the history of pit bulls, the article in question as a whole is blatant pit bull advocacy, including many thoroughgoing misrepresentations and distortions of fact.
  Pit bulls, for example, were scarcely a British invention, and bull-and-bear baiting was only one side of the ancestry of the pit bulls imported to South Africa, chiefly from the U.S., during the apartheid years. Swart makes no reference to the Spanish side of pit bull ancestry (e.g. Presa Canario and “Cuban bloodhound”), nor to the centuries of use of pit bulls by conquistadores, slave traders, and hunters of escaped slaves.
  Continues Swart: “Breed-specific legislation is being strongly pushed for…But history suggests it simply does not work…After several maulings in the 1980s, the U.K. imposed legislation in 1991 banning pit bulls but the number of dog bites stayed the same – as was the case in different counties in the U.S. People simply bought other vicious breeds.”
  In truth the U.K. did NOT ban pit bulls. It banned the “American pit bull terrier,” Japanese tosa, Dogo Argentino, and Fila Brasiliero, all “foreign” breeds, but exempted “Staffordshires,” “American bulldogs,” “American bullies,” and every other pit bull variant not specifically designated an “American pit bull terrier.” The outcome, predictably, was an explosion of attacks by pit bulls called by many other common names for essentially the same dog. The fatalities are listed by breed here: Pit bull kills trainer as U.K. groups seek repeal of Dangerous Dogs Act 1991.
  People did not simply buy other breeds. As Swart admits, “A banned breed can simply be renamed something else and the danger continues.” That is exactly what happened. An effective pit bull ban would have banned the pit bull head and body type altogether, regardless of nation of origin and name by which the dog is called.
  Swart goes on to recite several further commonly claimed falsehoods: “Moreover, breed-specific legislation ignores behavioral and other biological aspects: the aggressive dogs are much more likely to be male, be intact (unneutered), and most likely to be unsocialized (including kept on a chain usually) or actively encouraged in aggression. So this legislation is both over-inclusive (it includes lots of gentle dogs) and under-inclusive (it misses a lot of vicious dogs).”
  Indeed, because the sterilization rate for pit bulls is only about 20%, compared to circa 80% for other dogs, most pit bulls (regardless of gender) who kill and disfigure people have not been sterilized. But more than 60 pit bulls who were not only sterilized but had passed behavioral screening by animal shelters prior to adoption have killed or disfigured Americans in the present century. Clearly, neither sterilization nor behavioral screening makes pit bulls significantly safer.
  In fact, pit bulls who have been rehomed appear to kill people more often than pit bulls who are still in their birth homes.
  Further, while some pit bulls who have harmed people have been kept chained, more than two-thirds of pit bulls inflicting fatal or disfiguring attacks have been kept as household pets, have attacked members of the household or invited visitors, and have been described by their owners as “gentle” until suddenly they were not.