Another fatal Pit Bull attack....

[shiningwizard255]

Pit bulls are such a touchy subject. On the one hand, I worked in a no-kill and some of my favorites dogs were pit bull types. We had a brindle puppy that was a total doll baby. On the other hand…I’ve seen some pretty horrific video footage of pit bulls attacks and victims. And if one ever attacked my animals, I wouldn’t hesitate to shoot it myself (though in all fairness, I would feel that way about any dog that would hurt my animals).

I am not against mandatory spay/neuter, euthing the even remotely unstable ones, letting the nice ones live out their lives, and phasing this breed out. I don’t hate nice pit bulls, but honestly, I think it’s for the best of the dogs as a whole if we let them go. For every one nice pit bull in a happy home there are tons in shelters or living in terrible situations, and it’s sad. I can’t think of another dog breed humans have treated more poorly, with the exception of maybe the beagle.

[JackieBlue]

[QUOTE=Arrows Endure;7504299]
That’s actually not true. The majority of the major dog bites caused by ANY breed are yard dogs. Dogs that have been put in a yard or on a chain and then not given proper attention and training. They are usually intact. And they are quite frequently free roaming.
http://nationalcanineresearchcouncil.com/dogbites/dog-bite-related-fatalities/

Only 9% (3 deaths, 3 dogs) of 2013 DBRF involved chained dogs. All 3 chained dogs were Pit Bulls, but there were only 3. 38% of DBRF victims were either visiting or living temporarily with the dog’s owner. Children under 7 made up 83% of these deaths.

Check out that most of the dogs are intact, free roaming, not family pets, and have some previous incidents showing they might have issues. Please note that breed was not a predictor. The study was published by the Journal of the American Veterinary Association, so I’m pretty confident that the research is sound.

“Family dogs” comprised almost half of fatal attacks in 2013, coming in at 47%. Pit Bulls were responsible for 78% of DBRF in 2013, while they represent about 6% of the US canine population. I’m pretty sure that means breed is a predictor when it comes to Dog Bite Related Fatalities.

Pit’s don’t “snap” and turn on their owners with no warning any more than any other dog. When a dog bites, there is always predictors that would tell someone observant and trained in dog behavior that there is a problem brewing.

Well, actually, dogs that have been bred to fight, have fighting skills. They do attack without warning and they do send mixed signals when fighting and attacking. It’s a strategy that works, allows them to get the upper hand, and humans have selected generation after generation for the most successful fighters.

What we need is education. Education will teach people to pay attention to what the dog is telling us. It will teach people how to train the dog that doesn’t promote aggression and/or fear. It will teach people how to intervene before there is a problem. And it will teach people how to appropriately interact with a dog.

Case in point, I was at work today. We have a little shy beagle mix that we are working at socializing and convincing her that people aren’t going to eat her. Very nice, very well meaning volunteer goes to try and coax her out of her shell, and did it by bending over at her waist over the dogs head. Yes, I took the time to explain how to coax the dog out without scaring her.[/QUOTE]

.

[Coyoteco]

I just want to say that I think BSL is a very bad idea. I think the pit bull breeds have been over promoted by well-meaning fans, and that it has caused them to be the in vogue breed of the day for the last few years. Letting them move on from being a fad is one step to making things better for everyone - especially the pit bulls. That doesn’t require breeding bans - just a lack of promotion. The web sites do call them “nanny dogs” “perfect family pets” and on and on without full disclosure. The next thing that should occur? Stop dog fighting! Seriously, how hard is it to end that illegal practice? Mia’s parents apparently thought that they were breeding “show dogs” when they were breeding to a dog from a very violent line. Having “show line” pit bulls and breeding them accordingly will only really occur when the dog fighting industry is completely stopped.
I don’t think disrupting the lives of the owners of good pit bulls and the lives of good owners of questionable pit bulls by seizing the dogs is fair to the dogs or to their owners - and sets a very bad precedent for our society.
Just end the “sport” of dog fighting and stop promoting the fad status of the breed and this issue will resolve itself.

I did look briefly at a report that was attached above and that was interesting both in the numbers of attacks and that most of the attacks seem to not be by “family pets” but by pit bulls that are something else - running at large, tied outside, that sort of thing.

In both of the tragic cases last month, it was not a “family dog” from what I understand. The little boy was mauled by the dog that was tied out in the back yard. The little girl who was killed was apparently killed by a dog brought in to breed to their pet pit bull (who stayed out of the attack but also did not defend the girl).

They should not be promoted as a dog for every family, or everyone. They seem to require attention to be people safe. They should NOT be put in the small dog areas at dog parks which seems to occur too often to even be rational.

[JackieBlue]

[QUOTE=khall;7504382]
vacation and et all, do you really think that all pit types are just walking dog killing machines? Because that is the way you come across and it sounds very unbalanced emotionally.

I have been around full APBT and pit crosses for many years and none of the ones I have been around have been dog aggressive, none. One that I had PTS was people aggressive, he was found abandoned had been fought. My foster bait dog was NOT dog aggressive nor people aggressive in any way shape or form and she had a right to be from the scars she wears to this day and with her canines knocked half off. Took her on a bully walk, celebrating the pit bulls. All of the dogs were well behaved, we were passing a restaurant with a beagle tied out, the beagle bit my foster on the nose, my foster just turned and walked away, never even growled at the stupid beagle.

Meeting me walking my former foster you would have absolutely no reason to move to the other side of the street and I would not knowing my foster so well. She is always eager to meet new friends, but is also ready to go with me when I walked her, ignoring other dogs. The foster I have now is a large bully type think mastiff mix brindle dog, my 25# terrier X will put him on the ground he is so soft a dog (foster is 80 lbs). He might bark at a strange dog, but it is from fear not from aggression because he is a chicken. He also never meets a stranger, loves all people though again I do not understand why, he came to me having been hit on pretty bad. Raise a hand and he would flatten to the ground, throw a toy when I first got him and he would flatten. Not any more and he thinks all people are cool with potential treats in their pockets![/QUOTE]

YOUR personal experiences are just that. They don’t change facts. Being able to look at cold, hard numbers and admit there may be a problem despite being a lifelong dog lover and then putting consideration of public safety and human life ahead of blind love of a dog breed is far from emotionally unbalanced.

[khall]

Coyoteco, are you kidding me? Pit bulls need attention to be people safe? uumm so not true. I have met 1 pit bull type that was people aggressive, the rest never met a stranger. In fact pit bull types are not recommended for guarding anything because they are so people friendly! All of my bully mixes (fosters and my own) and full APBT foster never met a stranger, never. All are very people friendly even the one who had been physically abused before he came to me as a foster, he would cringe with any quick movements initially, now he has moved on from his past.

I can get the dog aggression for pit types, though it has not been my experience. But dog aggression and people aggression are two very different things.

The information I read on the dog that attacked the 4 yr old girl first of all was not a registered pit bull but a mix of some sort with pit bull in it, not a breed I recognized. Second the dog had shown people aggression, yes the one who attacked the little girl, and the family was looking to re-home the dog. It was the line out of a certain sire, that dog’s sire, was known for PASSING ON people aggressive dogs. That is NOT acceptable in my book. I only agree with breeding when it is to improve the breed, not make up a new one or just to make money.

[JackieBlue]

[QUOTE=Coyoteco;7504438]
I just want to say that I think BSL is a very bad idea. I think the pit bull breeds have been over promoted by well-meaning fans, and that it has caused them to be the in vogue breed of the day for the last few years. Letting them move on from being a fad is one step to making things better for everyone - especially the pit bulls. That doesn’t require breeding bans - just a lack of promotion. The web sites do call them “nanny dogs” “perfect family pets” and on and on without full disclosure. The next thing that should occur? Stop dog fighting! Seriously, how hard is it to end that illegal practice? Mia’s parents apparently thought that they were breeding “show dogs” when they were breeding to a dog from a very violent line. Having “show line” pit bulls and breeding them accordingly will only really occur when the dog fighting industry is completely stopped.
I don’t think disrupting the lives of the owners of good pit bulls and the lives of good owners of questionable pit bulls by seizing the dogs is fair to the dogs or to their owners - and sets a very bad precedent for our society.
Just end the “sport” of dog fighting and stop promoting the fad status of the breed and this issue will resolve itself.

I did look briefly at a report that was attached above and that was interesting both in the numbers of attacks and that most of the attacks seem to not be by “family pets” but by pit bulls that are something else - running at large, tied outside, that sort of thing.

In both of the tragic cases last month, it was not a “family dog” from what I understand. The little boy was mauled by the dog that was tied out in the back yard. The little girl who was killed was apparently killed by a dog brought in to breed to their pet pit bull (who stayed out of the attack but also did not defend the girl).

They should not be promoted as a dog for every family, or everyone. They seem to require attention to be people safe. They should NOT be put in the small dog areas at dog parks which seems to occur too often to even be rational.[/QUOTE]

Breed Specific Legislation DOES NOTT EQUAL taking doggies away. There are many, many levels of BSL and there’s no need to “disrupt the lives of the owners of good Pit Bulls”. This world is, thank goodness, NOT black and white. There are many shades of grey.
In the case of the girl, I read in multiple locations that the male was a family pet. Where is it written that he was a breeding animal on loan?
As you point out in the end of your post, there are certain restrictions that should apply to the care of these dogs. That’s where BSL can make a difference. I repeat: BSL ABSOLUTELY DOES NOT NOT NOT MEAN DOGS ARE SEIZED FROM THEIR OWNERS. “Legislation” is a big word, open to much interpretation.

[Coyoteco]

[QUOTE=khall;7504490]
Coyoteco, are you kidding me? Pit bulls need attention to be people safe? uumm so not true. I have met 1 pit bull type that was people aggressive, the rest never met a stranger. In fact pit bull types are not recommended for guarding anything because they are so people friendly! All of my bully mixes (fosters and my own) and full APBT foster never met a stranger, never. All are very people friendly even the one who had been physically abused before he came to me as a foster, he would cringe with any quick movements initially, now he has moved on from his past.

I can get the dog aggression for pit types, though it has not been my experience. But dog aggression and people aggression are two very different things.

The information I read on the dog that attacked the 4 yr old girl first of all was not a registered pit bull but a mix of some sort with pit bull in it, not a breed I recognized. Second the dog had shown people aggression, yes the one who attacked the little girl, and the family was looking to re-home the dog. It was the line out of a certain sire, that dog’s sire, was known for PASSING ON people aggressive dogs. That is NOT acceptable in my book. I only agree with breeding when it is to improve the breed, not make up a new one or just to make money.[/QUOTE]

First, I disagree that dog aggressive and people aggressive are not related, especially when the person is a small child.

Second, I have read much of what has been written by the dog that killed little Mia. I have never read that the dog had any history or violent behavior at all. It is not a “mix of some kind” but a registered American Bully. American Bullies are a cross between an American Pit Bull Terrier and an American Staffordshire Terrier - both of which are “pit bulls”. The American Bully registry takes purebred American Pit Bull Terriers into their registry as well and this dog was American Pit Bull Terrier according to what I’ve read. Either way this dog was a purebred registered pit bull. This dog had never exhibited aggression but his siblings have. The sire line is known to be violent.

I think you should re-read my post as you seem to misunderstand my points.

[JackieBlue]

[QUOTE=khall;7504490]
Coyoteco, are you kidding me? Pit bulls need attention to be people safe? uumm so not true. I have met 1 pit bull type that was people aggressive, the rest never met a stranger. In fact pit bull types are not recommended for guarding anything because they are so people friendly! All of my bully mixes (fosters and my own) and full APBT foster never met a stranger, never. All are very people friendly even the one who had been physically abused before he came to me as a foster, he would cringe with any quick movements initially, now he has moved on from his past.

I can get the dog aggression for pit types, though it has not been my experience. But dog aggression and people aggression are two very different things.

The information I read on the dog that attacked the 4 yr old girl first of all was not a registered pit bull but a mix of some sort with pit bull in it, not a breed I recognized.

HOLD THE PHONE - This was a UKC registered APBT from “XL” Bullie bloodlines. No mystery there.

Second the dog had shown people aggression, yes the one who attacked the little girl, and the family was looking to re-home the dog. It was the line out of a certain sire, that dog’s sire, was known for PASSING ON people aggressive dogs. That is NOT acceptable in my book. I only agree with breeding when it is to improve the breed, not make up a new one or just to make money.[/QUOTE]

.

[Coyoteco]

[QUOTE=JackieBlue;7504504]
Breed Specific Legislation DOES NOTT EQUAL taking doggies away. There are many, many levels of BSL and there’s no need to “disrupt the lives of the owners of good Pit Bulls”. This world is, thank goodness, NOT black and white. There are many shades of grey.
In the case of the girl, I read in multiple locations that the male was a family pet. Where is it written that he was a breeding animal on loan?
As you point out in the end of your post, there are certain restrictions that should apply to the care of these dogs. That’s where BSL can make a difference. I repeat: BSL ABSOLUTELY DOES NOT NOT NOT MEAN DOGS ARE SEIZED FROM THEIR OWNERS. “Legislation” is a big word, open to much interpretation.[/QUOTE]

In part, I was referring to a poster above who said the dogs should all be taken and destroyed.

I’m not sure what BSL is if it does not require that there be no individuals of that breed in that municipality. I know in Denver, even the no-kill shelters could not keep the pit bulls that they had. I know people had to get rid of their dogs in one way or another - and that was at the same time that the no kill shelters were told they, also, couldn’t house any pit bulls. I think Rottweilers were included. So, if it becomes illegal to have a pit bull in an area, and the person doesn’t get the dog out of that area, what happens to the dog illegally in the area? Either they are all seized or there is selective enforcement of the law.

I know one report kept being repeated saying that he was a family pet. But, I read elsewhere that the dog was there as a $1500 stud dog. Obviously, I don’t know which was accurate, but I tended to believe the latter report.

[JackieBlue]

[QUOTE=Coyoteco;7504505]
First, I disagree that dog aggressive and people aggressive are not related, especially when the person is a small child.

Second, I have read much of what has been written by the dog that killed little Mia. I have never read that the dog had any history or violent behavior at all. It is not a “mix of some kind” but a registered American Bully. American Bullies are a cross between an American Pit Bull Terrier and an American Staffordshire Terrier - both of which are “pit bulls”. The American Bully registry takes purebred American Pit Bull Terriers into their registry as well and this dog was American Pit Bull Terrier according to what I’ve read. Either way this dog was a purebred registered pit bull. This dog had never exhibited aggression but his siblings have. The sire line is known to be violent.

I think you should re-read my post as you seem to misunderstand my points.[/QUOTE]

This is exactly what I’ve read and understand. I don’t know what khall has been reading, but I wish she’d share her source since it’s so different from everything else readily available.

[Coyoteco]

JackieBlue, I went looking for the information on the breeding status of the dog Niko who killed Mia. The dog belongs to the mother’s boyfriend and is a dog who is advertised as a breeding dog for $1500. It is not clear whether the boyfriend lived with the mother and Mia or not, but it is thought that he did not live there.

[JackieBlue]

[QUOTE=Coyoteco;7504512]
In part, I was referring to a poster above who said the dogs should all be taken and destroyed.

I’m not sure what BSL is if it does not require that there be no individuals of that breed in that municipality. I know in Denver, even the no-kill shelters could not keep the pit bulls that they had. I know people had to get rid of their dogs in one way or another - and that was at the same time that the no kill shelters were told they, also, couldn’t house any pit bulls. I think Rottweilers were included. So, if it becomes illegal to have a pit bull in an area, and the person doesn’t get the dog out of that area, what happens to the dog illegally in the area? Either they are all seized or there is selective enforcement of the law.

I know one report kept being repeated saying that he was a family pet. But, I read elsewhere that the dog was there as a $1500 stud dog. Obviously, I don’t know which was accurate, but I tended to believe the latter report.[/QUOTE]

So, maybe this type of confusion is where some of the knee-jerk emotional responses to the phrase “Breed Specific Legislation”. Maybe the Pit Propagandists have led people to believe that BSL is synonymous with breed ban. BSL can be as simple as the definition - any law pertaining to a specific breed or group of breeds. ANY law. In some states certain breeds need to be muzzled in public. That’s BSL. In some areas Pit Bulls are automatically labelled as “vicious dogs” and aren’t given “three strikes”. That’s BSL. A law stating that an individual needs a kennel license to own intact fighting breed dogs is BSL.
BSL is many things. A ban can be an example of BSL at the most restrictive end of the spectrum, but even just requiring in-person registration or reporting ownership of fighting breeds is BSL at the milder end.

[Coyoteco]

[QUOTE=JackieBlue;7504550]
So, maybe this type of confusion is where some of the knee-jerk emotional responses to the phrase “Breed Specific Legislation”. Maybe the Pit Propagandists have led people to believe that BSL is synonymous with breed ban. BSL can be as simple as the definition - any law pertaining to a specific breed or group of breeds. ANY law. In some states certain breeds need to be muzzled in public. That’s BSL. In some areas Pit Bulls are automatically labelled as “vicious dogs” and aren’t given “three strikes”. That’s BSL. A law stating that an individual needs a kennel license to own intact fighting breed dogs is BSL.
BSL is many things. A ban can be an example of BSL at the most restrictive end of the spectrum, but even just requiring in-person registration or reporting ownership of fighting breeds is BSL at the milder end.[/QUOTE]

Well, I suppose “BSL” can be any legislation that is specific to a breed. The one poster here referred to killing them all and I am only (somewhat) familiar with what Denver and Aurora did (and now Aurora is on the verge of repealing its legislation).

Legislation of this kind is a slippery slope though.

[Coyoteco]

I am adding this link about the dog Niko…
http://blog.dogsbite.org/2014/03/2014-dog-bite-fatality-family-pit-bull-kills-houma-girl.html

And Niko’s page where he is shown with the owner’s young son. It has puppies for sale. http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:khUz52ncefkJ:https://www.facebook.com/btmkennels%3Fhc_location%3Dtimeline+&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a

There are also comments on the local paper there.

At various place, the question is asked: Why did the authorities decide to not test for steroids?

[Stushica]

So I only have time for a short response this morning…

To Vacation (Et al)
Firstly if my snugglebutt did decide to eat you/your dog/ even your couch, I would surely pay for it… without being sued, It’s how I was raised. I offer to pay vet bills on horses that are injured while I’m riding etc. If you want to really simplify it I subscribe to the you break it you bought it philosophy. I am responsible for my dog and thus responsible for his actions.

And here’s a thought - why don’t you and your pit cross the street? I take my dog out of the way of smaller dogs, or dogs being walked by the elderly or children. It’s just manners. I’ve never seen a pit owner do the same for people with dogs

Because in America we walk on the right side of the street. Which is where I walk. If someone is moving faster we step off and he sits. We pass on peoples left side so I am between them and my dog as per proper leash walking. He is between cars and I on roads because my life is more important… So I’m not switching sides if you are on the wrong side of the street/ greenway. I’m sure their’s someone like you that lives in Cleveland but they have not approached me to tell me how scary my dog is, on the off chance they did get close enough to tell me they are scared although I may not totally understand/ empathize I would do my best to keep Romeo as far away from you as possible… even if that includes walking on the wrong side of the road Simply because I want to set a good example for pit owners as being considerate and conscious.

As for shiningwizard255’s post, as much as I love my pitty puppy, I am truly saddened at the environments of many of these dogs and I could definitely go along with that train of thought. I love all dogs I don’t NEED to own one of these dreaded pit bulls, sure they’re my favorite, but if they didn’t exist I would just pick some other mutt and hope that the bad owners wouldn’t move on to destroying some other “beed”.

[Stushica]

[QUOTE=Coyoteco;7504558]

Originally Posted by JackieBlue
So, maybe this type of confusion is where some of the knee-jerk emotional responses to the phrase “Breed Specific Legislation”. Maybe the Pit Propagandists have led people to believe that BSL is synonymous with breed ban. BSL can be as simple as the definition - any law pertaining to a specific breed or group of breeds. ANY law. In some states certain breeds need to be muzzled in public. That’s BSL. In some areas Pit Bulls are automatically labelled as “vicious dogs” and aren’t given “three strikes”. That’s BSL. A law stating that an individual needs a kennel license to own intact fighting breed dogs is BSL.
BSL is many things. A ban can be an example of BSL at the most restrictive end of the spectrum, but even just requiring in-person registration or reporting ownership of fighting breeds is BSL at the milder end.
Well, I suppose “BSL” can be any legislation that is specific to a breed. The one poster here referred to killing them all and I am only (somewhat) familiar with what Denver and Aurora did (and now Aurora is on the verge of repealing its legislation).

Legislation of this kind is a slippery slope though.[/QUOTE]

Bingo!

Annnd Although I would be annoyed at needing to muzzle my dog/ adhere to other vicious dog policies if that’s what it took to keep him so be it. :rolleyes:

[Stushica]

[QUOTE=Coyoteco;7504559]
I am adding this link about the dog Niko…
http://blog.dogsbite.org/2014/03/2014-dog-bite-fatality-family-pit-bull-kills-houma-girl.html

And Niko’s page where he is shown with the owner’s young son. It has puppies for sale. http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:khUz52ncefkJ:https://www.facebook.com/btmkennels%3Fhc_location%3Dtimeline+&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a

There are also comments on the local paper there.

At various place, the question is asked: Why did the authorities decide to not test for steroids?[/QUOTE]

My question is if he has been destroyed yet and if not, why?

A parent couldn’t seriously keep the dog that mauled their child… 0.o

[Stushica]

[QUOTE=khall;7504490]
Coyoteco, are you kidding me? Pit bulls need attention to be people safe? [/QUOTE]

Mehh… Although I have pulled totally unsocialized intact 2 yr old males from pens that were totally friendly I really really think that on a breed whole they do need a lot of handling. Not so much to keep them from becoming aggressive but to keep them from being flat out destructive. There is no way any of the pitbull’s I have owned would have just been naturally good house pets(I’m sure they exist). There was lots and lots of training first and I tell the people who just love my dog and want one just like him that they better want to put in hours a day of training if that’s the case because as a puppy he was not this cool lol

[S1969]

[QUOTE=Coyoteco;7504538]
JackieBlue, I went looking for the information on the breeding status of the dog Niko who killed Mia. The dog belongs to the mother’s boyfriend and is a dog who is advertised as a breeding dog for $1500. It is not clear whether the boyfriend lived with the mother and Mia or not, but it is thought that he did not live there.[/QUOTE]

Here’s an example of BSL I could get behind:

Breeding of unregistered <insert breed name/type> is ILLEGAL.

Breeding of registered <Bully breed> is restricted and regulated - requires a kennel license which will be expensive and requires an inspection.

Non-breeding dogs must be spayed or neutered or they will be considered either an illegal breeding dog (unregistered), or the owner will need to pay for the kennel license.

Any dogs bred illegally and/or without a license will be destroyed and owners fined or charged.

The problem isn’t the BREED - it’s the breeders. Put this heavy burden back on them. If there is a good breeder, they may grumble about an expensive breeding license, but it would be better than a total ban, and with time - the good breeders might start to out number the bad.

[JackieBlue]

[QUOTE=Stushica;7504623]
So I only have time for a short response this morning…

To Vacation (Et al)
Firstly if my snugglebutt did decide to eat you/your dog/ even your couch, I would surely pay for it… without being sued, It’s how I was raised. I offer to pay vet bills on horses that are injured while I’m riding etc. If you want to really simplify it I subscribe to the you break it you bought it philosophy. I am responsible for my dog and thus responsible for his actions.

Because in America we walk on the right side of the street. Which is where I walk. If someone is moving faster we step off and he sits. We pass on peoples left side so I am between them and my dog as per proper leash walking. He is between cars and I on roads because my life is more important… So I’m not switching sides if you are on the wrong side of the street/ greenway. I’m sure their’s someone like you that lives in Cleveland but they have not approached me to tell me how scary my dog is, on the off chance they did get close enough to tell me they are scared although I may not totally understand/ empathize I would do my best to keep Romeo as far away from you as possible… even if that includes walking on the wrong side of the road Simply because I want to set a good example for pit owners as being considerate and conscious.

As for shiningwizard255’s post, as much as I love my pitty puppy, I am truly saddened at the environments of many of these dogs and I could definitely go along with that train of thought. I love all dogs I don’t NEED to own one of these dreaded pit bulls, sure they’re my favorite, but if they didn’t exist I would just pick some other mutt and hope that the bad owners wouldn’t move on to destroying some other “beed”.[/QUOTE]
Some mauling victims have medical bills in the 6 figures, many in the 5. When a Lifeflight is required, just that averages $18,000. Then, as in the recent case of Kevin, lengthy hospital stays and multiple reconstructive and plastic surgeries add up quickly. I’m certainly not implying that your dog is about to maul someone. Just that, while you have good intentions, paying someone’s medical bills and covering a horse’s vet bill can be very different experiences.