# Crazy dog bite case



## mechanic (Apr 1, 2010)

In my neck of the woods there was a crazy dog bite case recently that's caused some heated debate between some friends and myself.
Apparently there is a family that lives out in the country that breeds/sells Rottweilers.
They have 3 adult Rotties.
The female just recently had puppies.
Their 5 year old daughter went out to the barn to "play" with the puppies.
She went out unsupervised, in fact the initial police report said no one else was home at the time.sigiifa
One or all 3 of the adults apparently took exception to her playing with "their" puppies and a mauling took place.
They don't know if she will pull thru or not.
I of course feel terrible for the little girl and her family, but my friends all say it was completely the dog's fault and all 3 should be put to sleep?
I don't know how I feel about that?
If I was the kid's parent I would put them down as I couldn't stand to look at the dog's that did that to my kid every day, but was it completely the fault of the dog's?
Input please.
TY
Eric


----------



## b-nads (Apr 9, 2010)

As far as I know, a 5 year old left alone at home is criminal negligence in and of itself.

Any person with a grain of common sense knows that a dog in an animal, and by nature, unpredictable...especially with small children, who dogs often see as their inferior. Furthermore, anyone with ANY knowledge of dogs, knows that bitches with puppies are protective. Small children should NOT be unsupervised around dogs. Children - period - should not be left unsupervised around big dogs...especially breeds in the ilk of Rotties. A friend of the family had their daughter mauled by a Golden Retriever...knew the dog, was around it all the time, gentle dog, but it tore her face off for no reason - right in front of both families - the friend and the dog owner. A similar fatality happened here in Montreal last year - parent was charged.

I feel aweful for the family in this case - I am the father of 4. That being said, I feel worse for the child. The dogs - put them down. The parent in me says put the parents down too - their first responsibility is their child, not their little side-line selling farmed puppies, and they failed at it miserably, and deserve to be dragged through the courts. I come from was down east - a dog bites someone - it's dead. Were the dogs behaving instinctively - yes. Can you blame a dog for being a dog - no. Should they be put down for something like this - yes. Who's ultimately responsible for this tragic situation - the idiots who not only left a 5 year old alone at home without supervision, but at home with large, protective, potentially aggressive and dangerous animals. The child could have as easily have got into cleaning products and poisoned herself...then the story would be different. Because we have soft-spots for animals, there's a humane side to the argument, but my call would be put them down.


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

How is it that a breed known for a capacity for powerful aggression (and that is different than being aggressive), and in a fairly defensive and easily provokable state (having a littler brings that out in even the most docile) can be housed in an area that a 5 year-old can get into? Even IF a parent was at home with the child, it is not irresponsible to let your kid go into your own back yard. But it IS irresponsible to not separate the dogs and the litter from those who might be perceived as intruders.

This is all the more tragic because it is the owners' own child and she is so young. But it could have easily been someone else's kid, or another adult, who ventured too close to what should have been an enclosed area.

How enclosed? I remember when we lived in Edmonton, there was a house backing onto the same laneway as the one we lived in, and there was a Rottweiler in the yard there. That thing tried clearing the chain-link fence to get at me getting in and out of my car. With those legs, you'd have sworn it was on a pogo stick. It would just shoot straight up 4 or 5 feet. The fence was about 7 or 8ft high but that didn't make me feel that much safer when this bugger got riled up.

I wouldn't put these particular dogs down, but I would certainly compel the owners to take the appropriate steps to contain them.


----------



## Mooh (Mar 7, 2007)

I have kids (now adults) and we've always had a dog or dogs. The adults are at fault. They set the play in motion. The rotties saw the child as a threat to their puppies and acted naturally. Whether they would have acted that way with adults present or not is immaterial, they acted as dogs. Too bad for everyone. Too bad for the child, for obvious reasons. Too bad for the parents who are probably idiots. Too bad for the dogs who will be put down, if for no other reason than they acted like dogs and the owners won't be able to look at them again. Too bad for a society which will demand the death of the dogs. This sort of stuff sets animal ownership back to the dawn of time.

I know a family that used to have 3 rotties. Great, gentle, obedient dogs, but no way on God's green earth would I put a small child between them and their puppies. 

Peace, Mooh.


----------



## b-nads (Apr 9, 2010)

Mooh, with no sarcasm intended whatsoever, you are truly a more enlightened person than me. While I'm a hunter, I loathe cruelty to animals. That being said, I have simple views on relationships between humans and the animal kingdom. If we flip the perspective on this a little, and put someone else's child getting into these idiots' backyard with what appears to be realitively simple access to potentially fatal animals, would you be so understanding of the dogs? If it was your kid? I'll be completely honest and up front, and anyone who consides me barbaric for my pov can go ahead and do so without drawing any malice from me - if this happened to my child, I would have personaly gone into the back yard with my SX3, put the dogs down myself, accepted the legal consequences that ensued for unlawful discharge, and the owners had better have a couple more Rots with them in the car to protect them from me when they got back from their joyride. Fortunately, I wouldn't let my child unsupervised like that, and a child going to puppies is as instinctive as a dog protecting a litter.

I had a fairly heated conversation with a guy in the field right beside my house last year about this topic. This clown would show up there everyday, walking his German Shepard and Pit Bull, and would let them both loose to run and play fetch. He would do so every weekday at 3 - just as the elementary school ended, and a couple hundred kids, including my two sons, would walk across that field to go home. I was never impressed by this, and actually called the police about it, who told me there was nothing to be done unless the dogs actually hurt someone...God bless pro-active thinking. I went out one night and met the guy on the path by the field walking his two dogs, and the Pit Bull starts growling at me like crazy...at this point, I told the guy flat-out that I thought it was careless of him to let dogs like that loose on the field full of kids, and that I had called the police about it. He started arguing that his dogs were well trained...I pointed out the Pitt Bull was obviously not. It got a little heated, and it ended with me telling him under no uncertain terms what my response would be if I ever saw one of those dogs approach one of my kids in an aggressive manner. He got pissed, but I never saw the dogs back ont he field again at dismissal time.

Anyway, to the case in hand, I'm praying for this child - and I'm not really a church-goer. This is a needless, totally avoidable situation. Hopefully it will have opened the eyes of the idiots responsible for it...too little too late, sadly.


----------



## blam (Feb 18, 2011)

parents' fault, IMHO.

who the hell lets their 5 year old play with unsupervised with large dogs, regardless of the breed.


----------



## guitarman2 (Aug 25, 2006)

Mooh said:


> I know a family that used to have 3 rotties. Great, gentle, obedient dogs, but no way on God's green earth would I put a small child between them and their puppies.
> 
> Peace, Mooh.


If you have to be that careful because of what the dogs could do, then I don't think anyone with children should have them. If adults want to take a chance that a powerful dog could some day, for whatever reason, attack them, then thats there problem. But no one should put a child in this type of potential harms way. 
The dogs should be put down, if for no other reason than the fact that they've tasted human blood and are most likely ruined.


----------



## Ship of fools (Nov 17, 2007)

Wow that is very unusal for a Rottwieler to be aggressive with a young child even with out any grown ups around. The dogs were seperated from folks by being in a barn away from everyone else but it really does come down to one thing only what is a 5 year old doing alone. I can understand if the parents were home I let my kids outside all of the time when they were younger and being out in the country side you would see that a lot more. I myself if they were my dogs and my child I would have them destroyed, and not because they did something wrong, but because I did something wrong in not explaining to my child that mommy Rotty doesn't like it when people play with her kids and that the child needs to be with a grown up if she wanted to see the puppies.
This is just a unfortunate set of circumstance and because we do not have the whole complete story it is difficult to really get to the bottom and all we can do is hope the girl recovers and is not afraid of dogs because of this and lets hope they do not get stupid and decide they need to ban Rotties as they did other breeds like pit bulls. A very sad situation all around and I for one do not blame the dogs, they are animals that acted as they would normally.
ship


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

I can't believe I'm saying this, but...

If you happened to be a firearm owner, heard a noise in your home late at night, and in a skirmish, _thought _you saw a weapon in the hand of an intruder, and discharged your weapon, fatally shooting another person, I would not consider you as now perpetually at risk because you've killed and therefore might kill again. Something stupid happened and you reacted in the heat of the moment with tragic consequences.

We don't know that these dogs are now hunters of human meat, or indeed any more prone to being provoked to attack or react defensively, following this incident. All we know with any certainty is that _other people _will now be far more apprehensive about the animals. That's why I say, even though there was considerable irresponsibility in this tragedy, it's not the dogs' fault for being dogs. The owners have a responsibility to secure the dogs so as to assure public and personal safety, or dispose of them in some manner (you can be pretty sure their daughter will never want to be within 50ft of them ever again) so that public safety is assured. If it costs them bucks to improve the physical barriers around the dogs, so be it. "Dispose" can mean relocating to another secure or risk-free location. It can also mean that the owners choose to put one or more of the animals down.

And b-nads, you were perhaps a little too confrontational for my tastes (though I have no idea how defensove the other guy was), but your instincts were _entirely appropriate_. I can't recall a *single* case of a dog attacking a child, seemingly unprovoked, where the owner said "Yeah, they weren't particularly well-trained". Owners of these animals always swear on a stack of bibles that the animal was trained, docile, wouldn't hurt a fly, great around kids, yadda-yadda. The attack always comes as a surprise to them. Some of these folks are probably lying, but a whole lot of them aren't: the attack really WAS a complete surprise, coming out of nowhere. And if you can't perfectly predict or control your animal's behaviour around crowds or children, you damn well keep them away from crowds and children. If they are a well-loved family pet, you take steps for them to spend the rest of their days that way, and being deservedly loved like that. You DON'T put them in situations where they do something everyone will regret.


----------



## b-nads (Apr 9, 2010)

blam said:


> parents' fault, IMHO.
> 
> who the hell lets their 5 year old play with unsupervised with large dogs, regardless of the breed.


A few weeks ago, I let my wife talk me into getting a puppy for the kids. We went with a smaller breed - a cross between an Aussie shep and Beagle. We selected from the litter, were aware of the herding tendancies of the Aussie, and brought her home. She is a great little dog, she's excellent with the kids - even when they can get rough with her. This is crucial - the kids need to be supervised for the dog's sake as much as their own, and that could be a factor in this case as well...which absolves the parents of nothing, IMHO. One day, under both of our supervision, the puppy nipped our 4 year old under the eye. Puppy teeth being what they are, the bight went right though her cheek, and left a tiny scar. An in inch higher, she's have lost an eye...and we'd have lost a dog. Point being - accidents and bites can happen under supervision...look what can happen without supervision.

This stuff always brings me back to a story my mother, who was attacked by my grandfather's sled dogs as a child and is now terrified of dogs, told me a few times when I was younger. I come from a very isolated community on the east coast. When my parents were kids, winter travel was done my dog team. These were huge, poorly fed, poorly treated animals, who were trained with axe handles and boots. In a neighboring village, a mother was cleaning, looked out the window, and saw one of the dogs, who had gotten off its lashing, walk by the window with one of her kids' legs in its mouth. The child had wondered into the dog pen unsupervised, and got killed and eaten. When I was a kid, and stupider, I got a chuckle out of that story. When something like this happens now and I think about my children, I can't decide whether I want to puke or cry.

In many fewer, more concise words than I used, Blam nailed it.

PS - to everyone here who reads this, please consider I come from a very different background, a different place...probably what most would consider a different world than you all know. I won't be so arrogant as to suggest that my views, opinions, and ways of thinking should be readily accepted and or excused because of that, but I am who I am, and won't appologize for it...I also wouldn't judge anyone for thinking or feeling otherwise.


----------



## Mooh (Mar 7, 2007)

One never knows if a dog can be reprogrammed after tasting human blood. They either reoffend or they don't depending on their own judgement. Means and opportunity should at all times be controlled by humans (even if the dogs have never tasted human blood). I don't disagree that these dogs need to be euthanized, I just don't see it as their fault. Too bad, that's part of the cost of owning domesticated animals, unfortunately. The child is an innocent. The adults in question set everything in motion. As such, their competency as parents, dog owners, and members of society, is in question. What's to be their punishment?

In a somewhat related move, I donated some supplies to the local OSPCA this morning.

Peace, Mooh.


----------



## guitarman2 (Aug 25, 2006)

Mooh said:


> What's to be their punishment?


I would say their child was a very high price to pay.


----------



## cheezyridr (Jun 8, 2009)

it's good to see so many agree on a basic level.

imo, anyone who owns more than one dog, and spends time with them, knows a little about pack behavior. i have the 2 sweetest beagles God ever created. they exuberantly love everybody, period the end. but i see evidence of pack behavior in them all the time. they treat each of us differently according to some pecking order they see in their mind. i see their behavior change even among simple things like which of us comes along when we take the dogs out for a walk. could those parents be so stupid as not to realize that to the dogs, the little kids are at the bottom of the pecking order? mebbe, i don't know. but it's hard for me to grasp that they could have 3 dogs, and not be cognizant of that.


----------



## guitarman2 (Aug 25, 2006)

mhammer said:


> I can't believe I'm saying this, but...
> 
> If you happened to be a firearm owner, heard a noise in your home late at night, and in a skirmish, _thought _you saw a weapon in the hand of an intruder, and discharged your weapon, fatally shooting another person, I would not consider you as now perpetually at risk because you've killed and therefore might kill again.


I've heard similar arguments and they are all ridiculous. When humans commit a crime or make a bad judgement call they have the ability to experience remorse and learn from it. RIght off the hop we are saying the dogs were just being dogs so in a sense we are say what they did was all right.
And when it comes right down to it they are "Just" dogs. They don't get the same rights as humans and the decision to put them down is much easier than to debate the death penalty for us. This may offend some dog lovers that equate their dogs to being as valuable as humans but the reality is they are not.


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

This is not popular with some dog owners, but I believe breeds specifically designed through selective breeding to be violent or agressive, should be pretty much bred out of existance.

It's not the dog's fault for being what it was bred to be, but I think they should all be allowed to die out.


----------



## Mooh (Mar 7, 2007)

guitarman2 said:


> I would say their child was a very high price to pay.


Naturally, but that shouldn't be the only punishment. Prohibition from dog ownership. Community service related to the crime. Fines. Jail time. All or some of the above?

Peace, Mooh.


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

Believe me, I'm not going off on any sort of an animal rights "dogs are people too" tirade. Nor am I saying that what they did was alright. Rather, I don't think we have any evidence that these dogs are now at any statistically _*greater*_ risk than they were before. They should have been more confined beforehand, and deserve to be equally confined now. There is no real change in their risk of attack, though, only glaring evidence of a risk that existed all along.

Reacting to perceived threat is not in the same category as one or more dogs finding out that they can simply pop into my coop and eat as many chickens as they want with impunity. The likelihood of instrumental learning is MUCH greater in the one instance than the other, and getting them to unlearn what they learned would take considerable effort. No dog has to learn to defend its litter, or would learn how to more effectively and expediently defend its litter from a 5 year-old based on one instance. Here we are talking about instinct, plain and raw, not learning things that now pose increased threat. If there is no feasible outcome OTHER than putting them down, I'm saddened by, but still fine with it. But a dog has not increased its threat level from what you mistakenly assumed beforehand simply because you now know what risk they _actually_ pose. They have not made some sort of magical transition to dependable killer. The dogs pose a tiny but real risk, and the owners naively assumed zero risk, and now know - in the cruelest way possible - they were wrong.

Humans have a way of conflating changes in what they know with what is true. The Rottweilers are not more of a threat _now_ that we know how exactly much of a threat they always were. If we were content to have them quietly contained before, why can't they remain quietly contained?


----------



## smorgdonkey (Jun 23, 2008)

blam said:


> parents' fault, IMHO.
> 
> who the hell lets their 5 year old play with unsupervised with large dogs, regardless of the breed.


Agree.

That's like dropping the kid off to play in the Serengeti and blaming the lions/cheetahs/hyenas.


If someone was walking down the sidewalk and the dogs knocked over the fence & attacked them, it *would be* the dogs' fault.


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

smorgdonkey said:


> If someone was walking down the sidewalk and the dogs knocked over the fence & attacked them, it *would be* the dogs' fault.


Legally, it would probably be the owner's fault for not taking appropriate precautions and either providing a suitable (or suitably-maintained) fence or a suitably strong and short-enough leash.


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

Why own such animals? Companionship? Loyalty?

Buy a lab or a beagle.


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

Hard to predict what people see in animals.

When I was much younger, there was a Disney movie called _The Incredible Journey_, about 3 pets finding their way back to their owners over a great distance. One of the animals was a white bull terrier, that ended up being sort of the protector of the other 2 (including a cat). That breed doesn't have a beautiful coat. They always look a little overweight and have that squinty face that I would describe to people as being "as close to a pig as you can get in a dog". In the film, he came across as a little tough, but primarily loyal to his friends, principled, and tough in service of his loyalty to his friends. I've never had one, but whether the impression was accurate or not, that always endeared the breed to me. And just to repeat, this was a traditional classic bull terrier, NOT a Staffordshire Bull (which always looks like a big bullfrog to me), or a pit bull. I'd imagine there are some folks who immediately think of the L'il Rascals when they see a pit bull.

At the other end, I'm reminded of the Was / Not Was tune "Credit Card", wherein the protagonist in the song brings a vicious attack dog as his "credit card" to sidestep paying for things.

People often see stuff in a particular breed that the rest of us don't see.


----------



## smorgdonkey (Jun 23, 2008)

mhammer said:


> Legally, it would probably be the owner's fault for not taking appropriate precautions and either providing a suitable (or suitably-maintained) fence or a suitably strong and short-enough leash.


True...but my point is that if they are fenced and go to any effort to attack something outside the fence including escaping and actually engaging - time for extermination.


----------



## Moosehead (Jan 6, 2011)

Milkman said:


> This is not popular with some dog owners, but I believe breeds specifically designed through selective breeding to be violent or agressive, should be pretty much bred out of existance.
> 
> It's not the dog's fault for being what it was bred to be, but I think they should all be allowed to die out.


Kind of like saying child soldiers in africa were raised to kill so lets kill em all. Doesn't make sense to me...does it still make sense to you?



Milkman said:


> Why own such animals? Companionship? Loyalty?
> 
> Buy a lab or a beagle.


I guess you didnt read the previous post about the lab that ripped a little girls face off... don't think they were bred to be violent or aggressive. 

I had a Yorkshire terrier growing up, yappy little thing. They were bred to kill rats in England/Scotland, now a popular breed with all sorts of folks. (mine claimed a few ankles lol)

Point being is that line of thinking is pretty narrow minded. You can keep the breed but through good breeding practices (more importantly good breeders) any aggressive traits shown by the offspring would NOT be eligible for future breeding material. Thusly aggressive traits are diminished within the breed. I was reading something before that highlighted the 3 factors that lead to aggressive dogs; breeding lineage, training or lack thereof and how they are brought up. Think of some of the characters you've known growing up, do they fall into 2 of the catagories. I know some of the guys I 've known throughout the years do and my point is they most likely could have been decent human beings but were either brought up in a shitty environment or hereditarily bred my a bunch of dicks ( no pun intended, i swear).

In a sense I guess your first post was somewhat correct, aggressive traits should be bred out of existence. All the more reason to not support backyard/farmyard breeder's.
I've taken both my dogs (boxer and bernese mtn dog) to training so they dont pose as much of a threat to society and themselves.
They are still animals no matter how domesticated and well trained. Cute cuddly little kitty can work you over faster than freddy kreuger.

Many reasons to own a dog, on a farm in pelham (as was the case here) a large breed dog would provide some security and keep the coyotes away from the livestock.

They don't call them man's best friend for nothing.


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

Moosehead said:


> Kind of like saying child soldiers in africa were raised to kill so lets kill em all. Doesn't make sense to me...does it still make sense to you?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Child soldiers WILL die out. Please consider what I actually said.

I did not say that all aggressive breeds should be put to sleep. I said they should be allowed to die out naturally. In other words, don't breed any more.

Yes, this makes sense to me even though the analogy is pretty thin IMO.

We can always rationalize having such animals, in much the same way as we can rationalize owning hand guns and automatic weapons, however considering the potential damage such things often cause, it simply not worth the risk.

As for labs ripping little girl's faces off, I'd wager the stats for dog bites would indicate this was a relatively rare occurrence with this breed.

House cats will sometimes snap and claw the crap out of someone, but I wouldn't consider them a real threat.


----------



## sulphur (Jun 2, 2011)

Labs and Beagles can still bite too.

There's a thread in TGP about a guy with a Beagle that has bitten a second child now.

While growing up, a buddy had a Lab, beautiful dog.
Someone came to the house, it was a stranger, maybe a salesman,
Didn't get an answer from the front door, so they decided to go around to the back.
The dog was there, unleashed, but in a contained yard.
The dog attacked and bit them.

Granted, the bite would be less harmful than a larger breed, but the psycological affects remain.


----------



## Guest (Oct 17, 2012)

and what about bunnies?


----------



## cheezyridr (Jun 8, 2009)

vicious attack dog if ever there was one


----------



## sulphur (Jun 2, 2011)

She's attacking my <3


----------



## guitarman2 (Aug 25, 2006)

Moosehead said:


> Kind of like saying child soldiers in africa were raised to kill so lets kill em all. Doesn't make sense to me...does it still make sense to you?


What doesn't make sense is anyone who equates a dam dog to human beings. I have nothing against dog lovers but these dog owners that think they're dogs hold the same value as a human life need to get a grip.


----------



## guitarman2 (Aug 25, 2006)

Milkman said:


> I did not say that all aggressive breeds should be put to sleep. I said they should be allowed to die out naturally. In other words, don't breed any more.


I think that these aggressive dangerous breeds should be illegal to own and even the ones current now should be confiscated. There's a reason people aren't allowed to domestically own bears or lions or tigers. I'm sure there could be cases cited where these exotic animals were friendly tame animals. But a bear, lion or tiger can rip you apart in seconds. Well so can a Rotweiller or a pitbull. So what is the difference? In my opinion owning these types of dogs is more unpredictable and ultimately more dangerous than owning a gun. Both a gun and a dog are dangerous with stupid owners but the dog has that one more level of dangerous by having a mind of its own. These dangerous breeds are analogous to a gun that could shoot someone with out an owner having to pick it up and point it.


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

laristotle said:


> and what about bunnies?


Ah, so you've *been *to our house.


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

Dog breeds exist because we MADE them exist. Some, like miniature poodles or Shar-Peis, were bred for cosmetic and style purposes. But a great many others were locally bred to serve a practical need that, quite frankly, doesn't exist for many people any more. If that breed provides companionship or some other useful function (e.g., Golden labs are the preferred breed for guide dogs), great. But the days of defending yourself or your farm against marauding bears or wild boars, or hunting down those damn badgers, are pretty much history for most people.

Is there some value in keeping a breed around, simply for "archival" purposes? Not so sure about that. If there is something genetically important or informative about them, the way that things like heritage maize or tomatoes provides, then sure, what the heck, keep breeding them, and keep enough around to provide sufficient genetic diversity. But it's not like ALL breeds are needed, and ought to be maintained from now until the sun goes nova.


----------



## doriangrey (Mar 29, 2011)

guitarman2 said:


> I think that these aggressive dangerous breeds should be illegal to own and even the ones current now should be confiscated. There's a reason people aren't allowed to domestically own bears or lions or tigers. I'm sure there could be cases cited where these exotic animals were friendly tame animals. But a bear, lion or tiger can rip you apart in seconds. Well so can a Rotweiller or a pitbull. So what is the difference? In my opinion owning these types of dogs is more unpredictable and ultimately more dangerous than owning a gun. Both a gun and a dog are dangerous with stupid owners but the dog has that one more level of dangerous by having a mind of its own. These dangerous breeds are analogous to a gun that could shoot someone with out an owner having to pick it up and point it.


pretty controversial topic (dogs & owners) but I have to say I'm with you on this one - way too many pitbulls around these days...I think they should be illegal (and are in some places)...in this particular case I would definitely put the dogs down - clearly the dumbass parents/owners should be held criminally responsible but I would still put the dogs down...just an opinion...


----------



## sulphur (Jun 2, 2011)

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2012/10/17/molly-chihuahua-windsor-dangerous-dog_n_1975163.html


----------



## Intrepid (Oct 9, 2008)

mhammer said:


> But the days of defending yourself or your farm against marauding bears or wild boars, or hunting down those damn badgers, are pretty much history for most people..



I respectfully disagree. Depending on where you reside, wild predators such as Coyotes, Wolves, Bears and FisherCats are still a perplexing problem to livestock and pets. I have a German Shepherd (around 120 pounds) that ably defends my property from such visitors. Just a few weeks ago she (yes, she's a girl) engaged a particularly viscious Fisher Cat that thankfully backed down from my dog. It is suspected that the Fisher is responsible for several missing pets in the area. Wolves and Coyotes no longer visit my property (we leave my dog's fesces scattered around the border of our homestead...nice). My neighbour down the road raises sheep and has experienced a significant loss of wildstock due to roaming packs of coyotes. He uses a Goat as his "guard dog" and although it used to fair well, the sheer volume of predators overwhelm the goat. The coyotes stay away from the goat but not the sheep. So now he's shopping out for a decent shepherding/defence type of dog
. So there still is a real need for "working dogs". Would I leave my Shepherd alone with a 5 year old child? Not a chance. She is very well behaved, obedient and well trained canine. But just like other animals, she has a natural "preservation instinct". If she senses danger, she reacts in a controlled manner to discourage the threat (barking, growling). If that does not work, she will defend herself. When she is with either my Wife or myself she is a pussycat. I have had Shepherds all my life. I know the breed and what they are capable of doing and as a prudent owner I ensure that she is never in a situation where an innocent person's safety may be compromised. That is my top responsibility. If she bites a human being, it is my fault, not hers.


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

doriangrey said:


> way too many pitbulls around these days


Way too many folks owning dogs who shouldn't. Same way there are way too many folks owning subwoofers who shouldn't.

Thirty odd years back, I worked in a research lab at McMaster, and spent many days in the animal research quarters doing unspeakable things to rats and hamsters. One of the groups also using the animal quarters for their work was working on thrombosis, and another group worked on recovery from (inflicted) spinal injuries. Both groups had a lot of larger breeds; Irish setters, St. Bernards, etc. These were animals that somebody had likely bought as puppies, because they were adorable (what puppies _aren't?_), and when they reached adult size and were a little too much bother, or perhaps unwelcome in the apartment, off to the shelter they went. Once in the shelter, they ended up being used for research. I remember at the time, there was a move on in California to make it illegal for shelter animals to be used for research. While it did not please me at all to see such fine animals end up the way they did, at the same time, I felt that removing the threat of having one's pet potentially end up like that would only remove disincentives for casual pet purchase. Either you commit to taking proper care of the anmal for its whole life, or you don't. And if you think someone else is going to clean up your mess when it becomes too much trouble, THAT'S what's going to happen to your beloved pet.

Yep, too many thoughtless and unqualified pet owners...period, regardless of breed. Although I'd agree with you that some breeds likely do require VERY special owners in order not to be a risk to the neighbourhood.


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

Intrepid said:


> I respectfully disagree. Depending on where you reside, wild predators such as Coyotes, Wolves, Bears and FisherCats are still a perplexing problem to livestock and pets. I have a German Shepherd (around 120 pounds) that ably defends my property from such visitors. Just a few weeks ago she (yes, she's a girl) engaged a particularly viscious Fisher Cat that thankfully backed down from my dog. It is suspected that the Fisher is responsible for several missing pets in the area. Wolves and Coyotes no longer visit my property (we leave my dog's fesces scattered around the border of our homestead...nice). My neighbour down the road raises sheep and has experienced a significant loss of wildstock due to roaming packs of coyotes. He uses a Goat as his "guard dog" and although it used to fair well, the sheer volume of predators overwhelm the goat. The coyotes stay away from the goat but not the sheep. So now he's shopping out for a decent shepherding/defence type of dog
> . So there still is a real need for "working dogs". Would I leave my Shepherd alone with a 5 year old child? Not a chance. She is very well behaved, obedient and well trained canine. But just like other animals, she has a natural "preservation instinct". If she senses danger, she reacts in a controlled manner to discourage the threat (barking, growling). If that does not work, she will defend herself. When she is with either my Wife or myself she is a pussycat. I have had Shepherds all my life. I know the breed and what they are capable of doing and as a prudent owner I ensure that she is never in a situation where an innocent person's safety may be compromised. That is my top responsibility. If she bites a human being, it is my fault, not hers.


That's why I said "most", rather than "all". If you have rural livestock, _of course _you have a guard dog worthy of the title. But with the preponderance of Canadians living in cities, there are comparatively few dog-owners who actually need to fulfill the completely legitimate function you describe.


----------



## Ship of fools (Nov 17, 2007)

You can't with a broad paint brush just decide that these dogs should not exist because of occasional attacks, thats like saying well we have had another bear attack so we should eliminate them all together. This was just a misfortunate event and from the sounds of it the dogs were placed in another area and we still do not know if it was just the mother dog being overly protective of her puppies ( I have seen where a five six year old was extremely rough in handling puppies before at the SPCA ) and so it begs to question did she somehow provoke the mothers instinct to protect her off spring. Rottwiellers are generally pretty passive on the whole with a few exceptions here and there and so I do not find it fair to say they shouldn't be kept or bred.
Its really up to the owners to make sure that the dogs are seperated and kept safe sometimes from kids and very stupid people and sometimes SHIT just happens in life and we must be careful to not over react anddecide that certain breeds are to dangerous, my first dog attack was from a chihuahau when I was very little ( pound for pound the most ferocious dog in the world ) do we get rid of them as they are a threat to little kids.ship


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

Ship of fools said:


> ... and so it begs to question did she somehow provoke the mothers instinct to protect her off spring.


...meaning this five-year-old girl brought this upon herself? she should have known better?


----------



## keto (May 23, 2006)

The thread isn't about dogs, or banning them. It's about stupid people. Leave child unsupervised, leave dogs in a place where child can go. Punish people who erred. End.

If dog is dangerous to people put it down.

You can't totally protect society from stupidity. Banning animals or things doesn't change that.


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

keto said:


> The thread isn't about dogs, or banning them. It's about stupid people. Leave child unsupervised, leave dogs in a place where child can go. Punish people who erred. End.
> If dog is dangerous to people put it down.
> You can't totally protect society from stupidity. Banning animals or things doesn't change that.



...yep. you can't really hold a dog, or a five-year-old, accountable.


----------



## Ship of fools (Nov 17, 2007)

david henman said:


> ...meaning this five-year-old girl brought this upon herself? she should have known better?


Not sure how you read that I was actually blaming the girl ( child ) I am just asking was she rough with a puppy and is that what caused the dog or dogs to attack as for who brought it on nor sure it makes even the slightest iota at this point the dog or dogs will most likely be destroyed because a grown up did not take care of business and did something really stupid by allowing her to have access without supervision.Thats all she wrote on that.ship


----------



## Intrepid (Oct 9, 2008)

Bottom line, it is dog owner that is ultimately responsible for "creating" a vicious dog. None of the so called dangerous breeds (Pitbull, Doberman, Rotweiler, Cane Corso, Shepherd) are inherently EVIL. If they are properly trained and controlled by their owners they are no more dangerous than a Lhasa Apso. The problem is the owner. Anytime we advocate the extinction of any species on this planet we diminsh the world we live in and accentuate our human failings. 



The National Canine Research Council has created the "best" summary of causes of dog bites...the owner. Here's a few quotes over the last 50 years from the Council:




> [h=3]We have always known the cause of dog bite injuries[/h]From the first dog bite study published more than 50 years ago until today, the conclusions and recommendations of the researchers have shared a lot in common. "This study of the epidemiology of dog bites would seem to indicate that human factors are more important than environmental factors in the genesis of dog bites."-- Henry M. Parrish, 1959​"Education programs aimed at influencing the behavior of pet owners, particularly with respect to the responsibilities of ownership, would do much to reduce the magnitude of the problems."-- H. Michael Maetz, 1975​"Poor owner control blamed for increase in dog bites."-- _Washington Post_, 1975​"The growing problem of dog control can only be solved if dog owners realize their responsibilities as pet owners."-- Lancaster Farming, 1978​"Efforts to prevent severe dog bites should be focused primarily at the level of the owner."-- John C. Wright, 1985​"Generic non-breed-specific dangerous dog laws can be enacted that place primary responsibility for a dog's behavior on the owner . . . In particular, targeting chronically irresponsible down owners may be effective."-- Jeffrey J. Sacks, et al, 2000​"The dog bite problem is not a disease problem with a single vector; it is a complex societal issue that must address a wide range of human behaviors in ways that deal with irresponsible behavior that puts people and animals at risk."-- Randall Lockwood, 2007​​*If we want better outcomes in our communities, we need to promote responsible pet ownership: the humane care, custody and control of all dogs.****​


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

Ship of fools said:


> Not sure how you read that I was actually blaming the girl ( child ) I am just asking was she rough with a puppy and is that what caused the dog or dogs to attack as for who brought it on nor sure it makes even the slightest iota at this point the dog or dogs will most likely be destroyed because a grown up did not take care of business and did something really stupid by allowing her to have access without supervision.Thats all she wrote on that.ship


...then what WAS the point of your question?

"and so it begs to question did she somehow provoke the mothers instinct to protect her off spring."

suppose she did somehow provoke the dogs? how is that relevant?


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

Intrepid said:


> Bottom line, it is dog owner that is ultimately responsible for "creating" a vicious dog. None of the so called dangerous breeds (Pitbull, Doberman, Rotweiler, Cane Corso, Shepherd) are inherently EVIL.


...while it is true that none are inherently evil, some have certain characteristics that make them inherently dangerous.


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

Intrepid said:


> Bottom line, it is dog owner that is ultimately responsible for "creating" a vicious dog. None of the so called dangerous breeds (Pitbull, Doberman, Rotweiler, Cane Corso, Shepherd) are inherently EVIL. If they are properly trained and controlled by their owners they are no more dangerous than a Lhasa Apso. The problem is the owner. Anytime we advocate the extinction of any species on this planet we diminsh the world we live in and accentuate our human failings.


Correct. People often forget to ask the question "If this breed is so prone to random aggressive outbursts, how the heck do they mate, have litters, and raise them successfully?". Why don't they savagely attack their mate or their young? The answer is that, while a great deal IS instinctive, they all learn how to allocate or constrain those instincts in social situations. That's how they don't rip the faces off their owners. That's also how dogs and humans peacefully coexist.

Here is a fascinating, provocative, and highly informative CBC Ideas series on the inner mental life and outer social life, of dogs. Highly recommended.
http://www.cbc.ca/ideas/episodes/2010/12/13/dogs-themselves-part-1---3/


----------



## doriangrey (Mar 29, 2011)

keto said:


> You can't totally protect society from stupidity. Banning animals or things doesn't change that.


I respectfully disagree - if you reduce the availability of the potentially dangerous elements then it is less likely that they will end up in the possession of irresponsible and/or stupid people. 



david henman said:


> ...while it is true that none are inherently evil, some have certain characteristics that make them inherently dangerous.


Agreed, some breeds are genetically predisposed to aggressive behavior more than other breeds. The stats don't lie:

[h=2]Report: U.S. Dog Bite Fatalities January 2006
to December 2008[/h]A 2009 report issued by DogsBite.org shows that 19 dog breeds contributed to 88 deaths in a recent 3-year period. Pit bulls accounted for 59% followed by rottweilers with 14%.


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

doriangrey said:


> Agreed, some breeds are genetically predisposed to aggressive behavior more than other breeds. The stats don't lie:
> 
> *Report: U.S. Dog Bite Fatalities January 2006
> to December 2008*
> ...


Those stats can be misleading. The proportion of fatal attacks has to be compared against the baseline of how many such dogs there are that _could_ attack.

Having said that, one might easily surmise that there are a whole helluva lot more Golden Labs around than Rottweillers, so even if one gathers the information and looks at percent of all Rottweillers that attack, and percent of all Golden Labs or Standard Poodles that attack, Rottweillers and Pit Bulls will still fail to come out the cuddliest, most dependably docile, little pet you could ever hope for.

However, that is still not the optimal data to sort the mess out. Ideally, what you want, in order to draw some sort of definitive policy with respect to those breeds, is % of Pit Bulls and Rottweillers *properly raised and trained*, that attack, relative to other breeds properly raised and trained. Of course, we are unlikely to ever have such data because a) we won't easily reach consensus on what "properly raised and trained" is or how it could be measured, and b) we are unlikely to ever commit the resources to assessing that for all dogs of selected breeds. So, because we are not in a strong methodological position to tease apart "hard-wired" breed attributes from "acquired" attributes, we chalk it up to the breed and make them the fall guy.

That's just what us humans tend to do. We do it with things like immigration restrictions on certain categories of people, or with firearms, or with food products, or drugs. If we can't accurately assess risk using sound methodology, we make an aggregate attribution, and just declare a whole category of something or someone risky.


----------



## Intrepid (Oct 9, 2008)

Okay, let us all play with U.S. Stats. Here is the study by the Colorado Veterinary Assocition in 2009. Seems to me that we should ban all chihuahuas. Lhasa Apsos and Labrador Retrievers.




> Study: Chihuahuas bite vets most; Lhaso Apsos inflict worst injuries
> 
> 
> Jul 1, 2009
> ...


​


----------



## Intrepid (Oct 9, 2008)

*We can go all year with this!*

Just one more article noting Dog bite trends in the 70's, 80's and 90's. Let's just kill them all and have cats.


> [h=1]Which dog breed is most likely to bite? You might be surprised at the answer[/h]Posted on June 24, 2010 | 18 Comments
> On the CBS Early Show, Dr. Debbye Turner Bell talks to Harry Smith about how to prevent and treat dog bites. Click the photo to go to CBSNews.com and watch the video.
> 
> Pits bulls, Dobermans, Rottweilers and other big dogs have gotten a bad rap for being aggressive dogs that are more likely than other dogs to bite people. But according to the Humane Society of the United States, the Centers for Disease Control, and the American Veterinary Medical Association, no one dog breed is more likely to bite than others.
> ...


----------



## Intrepid (Oct 9, 2008)

*Deadly Pomeranians!!!*

Which breed is next?


> The majority of dog attacks (61%) happen at home or in a familiar place.
> 
> The most horrifying example of the lack of breed predictability is the October 2000 death of a 6-week-old baby, which was killed by her family's Pomeranian dog. The average weight of a Pomeranian is about 4 pounds, and they are not thought of as a dangerous breed. Note, however, that they were bred to be watchdogs! The baby's uncle left the infant and the dog on a bed while the uncle prepared her bottle in the kitchen. Upon his return, the dog was mauling the baby, who died shortly afterwards. ("Baby Girl Killed by Family Dog," Los Angeles Times, Monday, October 9, 2000, Home Edition, Metro Section, Page B-5.)
> 
> ...


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

Intrepid said:


> Which breed is next?


Killer pugs!


----------



## cheezyridr (Jun 8, 2009)

david henman said:


> ...while it is true that none are inherently evil, some have certain characteristics that make them inherently dangerous.


crossing the street is dangerous do you want to legislate that away from us too? cause as we all know, the best way to deal with people who break the law is to create more laws making more illegal things. or things more illegal. frankly it's getting really old, every time anything happens anymore some fool wants to create a new law. it makes the concept of _zebra time_ a whole lot more attractive

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zebraman_2:_Attack_on_Zebra_City


----------



## Ship of fools (Nov 17, 2007)

doriangrey said:


> I respectfully disagree - if you reduce the availability of the potentially dangerous elements then it is less likely that they will end up in the possession of irresponsible and/or stupid people.
> And we know that this isn't really true as we have just seen at our own border, dangerous element was a gun brought up by a distraught US citizen who ends up shooting one of our border guards.
> ship
> Lets just admit we live in some crazy times and it frightens me to see what the world will be like in another 50 years from now. Thank goodness I will not be here to see it if it gets worse.
> ship


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

cheezyridr said:


> crossing the street is dangerous do you want to legislate that away from us too? cause as we all know, the best way to deal with people who break the law is to create more laws making more illegal things. or things more illegal. frankly it's getting really old, every time anything happens anymore some fool wants to create a new law. it makes the concept of _zebra time_ a whole lot more attractive
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zebraman_2:_Attack_on_Zebra_City



...wow, bro'. you might want to switch to decaf, then go back and re-read what i wrote. there is nothing in there about legislating anything.

while you're at it, check post # 41...


----------



## bluzfish (Mar 12, 2011)

Intrepid said:


> ... Let's just kill them all and have cats.


Cats already rule the world doncha know. They just let us use their stuff in exchange for food and litter. Don't try to change the balance of power or they will lie on your face and smother you in your sleep.


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

When I was in CEGEP, my best friend was reading Catch 22 as part of his own CEGEP English Lit course. In the book there is a character of "Huple's cat", who will sit on your face and smother you. He was enjoying the book and telling me all about the little subplots and characters.

One weekend, I stayed over at my friend's place. He and his brother split a bedroom, and the brother was off visiting the grandparents, so I took the brother's bed. In the middle of the night, I felt a sharp pain on my chest. I awoke to find their cat, perched on my chest, digging his claws into me, with a low gutteral growl, and his eyes glowing in the dark about 3" above my face, like some Liam Neeson revenge movie. Well, cripes, as far as I knew it WAS Huple's cat, and I just screamed and flung that SOB across the room, waking up everybody in the house.

Don't f*** with cats. Just let them go on about their business, because believe me, they WILL murder you in your sleep if you cross them!


----------



## Mooh (Mar 7, 2007)

mhammer said:


> When I was in CEGEP, my best friend was reading Catch 22 as part of his own CEGEP English Lit course. In the book there is a character of "Huple's cat", who will sit on your face and smother you. He was enjoying the book and telling me all about the little subplots and characters.
> 
> One weekend, I stayed over at my friend's place. He and his brother split a bedroom, and the brother was off visiting the grandparents, so I took the brother's bed. In the middle of the night, I felt a sharp pain on my chest. I awoke to find their cat, perched on my chest, digging his claws into me, with a low gutteral growl, and his eyes glowing in the dark about 3" above my face, like some Liam Neeson revenge movie. Well, cripes, as far as I knew it WAS Huple's cat, and I just screamed and flung that SOB across the room, waking up everybody in the house.
> 
> Don't f*** with cats. Just let them go on about their business, because believe me, they WILL murder you in your sleep if you cross them!


That cat was just checking to see if you were still alive. If you weren't, he'd have eaten you.

I can like cats, not as much as dogs. I love dogs. But every cat but one I've ever met has an evil streak. 

Peace, Mooh.


----------



## doriangrey (Mar 29, 2011)

"no one dog breed is more likely to bite than others"

Absolute unsubstantiated misleading rubbish...statistics prove that certain breeds are more gentically predisposed to aggressive behaviour...I have debated this topic with many people and the statistics don't lie...and the misleading part of that statement above is the word "bite"...the consequences of a bite from a toy poodle are obviously very different from the consequences of an attack from a pit bull...the statistics show that 128 Americans were killed by pitbulls from 2005 - 2011 (an alarming number), which is the equivalent of one person every 20 days...that is a tragic story about the child being killed by the Pomeranian but it is absolutely ridiculous to try and suggest that Pomeranians can be as dangerous as pitbulls. 

And even if we could do a study that involved "properly trained" dogs, which in itself would be impossible because that would be a subjective assessment, the consequences of an attack from certain breeds are clearly greater, as in the case below:


The outdated debate, "It's the owner, not the breed," has caused the pit bull problem to grow into a 30-year old problem.*1* Designed to protect pit bull breeders and owners, the slogan ignores the genetic history of the breed and blames these horrific maulings -- inflicted by the pit bull's genetic "hold and shake" bite style -- on environmental factors. While environment plays a role in a pit bull's behavior, it is genetics that leaves pit bull victims with permanent and disfiguring injury.
The pit bull's genetic traits are not in dispute. Many U.S. courts agree that pit bulls pose a significant danger to society and can be regulated accordingly. Some of the genetic traits courts have identified include: unpredictability of aggression, tenacity ("gameness" the refusal to give up a fight), high pain tolerance and the pit bull's "hold and shake" bite style.*2* According to forensic medical studies, similar injuries have only been found elsewhere on victims of shark attacks.*3*
Perpetuators of this myth also cannot account for the many instances in which pit bull owners and family members are victimized by their pet dogs. From 2005 to 2011, pit bulls killed 128 Americans, about one citizen every 20 days. Of these attacks, 51% (65) involved a family member and a household pit bull.*4* In the first 8 months of 2011, nearly half of those killed by a pit bull was its owner -- one was even an "avid supporter" of Bad Rap, a recipient of Michael Vick's dogs.*5*


----------



## doriangrey (Mar 29, 2011)

I'm not trying to derail this thread into a pitbull debate but it disturbs me when people try and deny the facts about certain breeds...

think I'll go check out a thread that's about guitars...

peace


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

Mooh said:


> That cat was just checking to see if you were still alive. If you weren't, he'd have eaten you.
> 
> I can like cats, not as much as dogs. I love dogs. But every cat but one I've ever met has an evil streak.
> 
> Peace, Mooh.


à
One of my favourite comic strips is Get Fuzzy ( http://www.gocomics.com/getfuzzy ), which features a siamese cat that is utterly contemptuous of anything and everything....except that he doesn't understand much of what he despises. It's like Garfield, if written by Oxford or Cal Tech doctoral students. The dog is none too bright, but like all dogs is good natured and ever-hopeful.


----------



## smorgdonkey (Jun 23, 2008)

mhammer said:


> One of my favourite comic strips is Get Fuzzy ( http://www.gocomics.com/getfuzzy ), which features a siamese cat that is utterly contemptuous of anything and everything....except that he doesn't understand much of what he despises. It's like Garfield, if written by Oxford or Cal Tech doctoral students. The dog is none too bright, but like all dogs is good natured and ever-hopeful.


I like that one too. Great stuff.


----------



## Mooh (Mar 7, 2007)

Clever stuff. My all time favourite is Giles, an English editorial cartoon, that often had animals portrayed in the backgrounds.

Peace, Mooh.



mhammer said:


> à
> One of my favourite comic strips is Get Fuzzy ( http://www.gocomics.com/getfuzzy ), which features a siamese cat that is utterly contemptuous of anything and everything....except that he doesn't understand much of what he despises. It's like Garfield, if written by Oxford or Cal Tech doctoral students. The dog is none too bright, but like all dogs is good natured and ever-hopeful.


----------



## Guest (Oct 19, 2012)




----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

Intrepid said:


> Bottom line, it is dog owner that is ultimately responsible for "creating" a vicious dog. None of the so called dangerous breeds (Pitbull, Doberman, Rotweiler, Cane Corso, Shepherd) are inherently EVIL. If they are properly trained and controlled by their owners they are no more dangerous than a Lhasa Apso. The problem is the owner. Anytime we advocate the extinction of any species on this planet we diminsh the world we live in and accentuate our human failings.
> 
> 
> 
> The National Canine Research Council has created the "best" summary of causes of dog bites...the owner. Here's a few quotes over the last 50 years from the Council:



How do we diminish the world we live in by eliminating a man made breed? We created things that should not have been created, or at least that no longer have any valid purpose.

Breeding them out of existance is not man eliminating something created through natural evolution. It's man eliminating something WE put here.


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

"Breeding out of existence" is a phrase that needs to be placed under the microscope a bit. 

What exactly is a "breed"? Some breeds, for dogshow purposes, are conceptualized purely in terms of their hallmark physical characteristics. I rmember a series of articles some years back commenting on the seeming sudden surge of bite cases in breeds like chihuahuas, noting that, for show purposes, they had been inbred and inbred to produce a highly domed forehead that, more often than not, was indicative of hydrocephalus (water on the brain). That is, the physical characteristics had been allowed to eclipse any redeemable behavioural or intellectual characteristics. Of course, with a dog that small, one isn't quite as concerned about them retaining usable instincts (like pointers, or huskies, or golden labs).

But when a person leans towards a certain breed (and I've watched "Pick a Puppy" more times than I'd care to admit), what is it they are identifying with. Sometimes it is primarily the visual characteristics. Yesterday, on the way to the bus I saw a short guy with a grey beard and jovial step walking a Llhasa Apso that also had a grey beard and jovial step. Years ago, as a student, I witnessed two women in downtown Montreal passing each other on Sherbrooke Ave., each walking a pair of dogs. One was a short pale elderly woman in a black cloth coat and black pillbox hat walking a pair of black Boston terriers. The other was a tall lanky Slavic-looking blond with long hair in a fur coat, walking a pair of blond Afghan hounds with similar hair. Boy do I wish they had phone cameras back then!

How MUCH are the behavioural characteristics required, though, for a person to identify with the breed? For instance, if something could be bred to look like a Pit Bull, but be reliably docile, would they want one? Conversely, if Weimareiners were as dumb as beagles, would anybody want one or be more content with a beagle (because its smaller)?

I ask this because nothing has to be "bred out of existence" _physically_. What would be better is a diverse array of breeds with various useful habits or instincts or tendencies _other than easy provocation to lethal aggression_. But would people want them? There's the rub. I've already stated that my affinity for Bull terriers is completely independent of any toughness or aggressiveness on their part. For me, 80% of their charm lies in their physical attributes. But I'm not everybody.

BTW, LOVED the dog/cat diary thing!


----------



## Intrepid (Oct 9, 2008)

Milkman said:


> How do we diminish the world we live in by eliminating a man made breed? We created things that should not have been created, or at least that no longer have any valid purpose..



I disagree with your entire post. We did not "create" dogs. Canus lupus familiariaris (domesticated dog) evolved thousands of years ago from the Grey Wolf. It evolved in such a way as to become more social with man as it's interactions with the human species became more frequent. Eventually "flight distance" of the Wolf towards humans became somewhat diminshed. Evidence shows domesticated dogs have been around since 30,000 B.C. They may have been bred by man to create variations of the Grey Wolf, but that, according to science is the starting point. We didn't put them here.
They no longer have a valid purpose? Guide dogs, therapy dogs, drug sniffing and cadaver dogs, herders, guard dogs and most imortantly companions. If we start eliminating living creatures that, according to you, no longer have a "valid purpose" this world will become devoid of most animals except those that provide a food product for humans. The "valid purpose" test is a slippery slope. Perhaps someday, as history has demonstrated in the past, someone will determine whether you or I serve a valid purpose.
This thread is about an irresponsible dog owner, who also happens to be an irresponsible parent allowing a 5 year old unsupervised access to a canine. It resulted in tragic consequences for the child. Should those dogs be put down? Probably. Should the parents be prosecuted for Failing to Provide the Necessities of Life for the child. Definitely. Should an entire species be eliminated because of this incident? The knee jerk reaction of the lunatic fringe would be Yes. How often do we want to rely on the lunatic fringe to decide what is best for our world? 
Since it is clear that some posts in this Thread are only designed to "stir the pot" and are devoid of any rational thought, I will refrain from taking the "bait" any further. I think I will go outside now and take my 120 pound Shepherd out for a run.


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

Intrepid said:


> I disagree with your entire post. We did not "create" dogs. Canus lupus familiariaris (domesticated dog) evolved thousands of years ago from the Grey Wolf. It evolved in such a way as to become more social with man as it's interactions with the human species became more frequent. Eventually "flight distance" of the Wolf towards humans became somewhat diminshed. Evidence shows domesticated dogs have been around since 30,000 B.C. They may have been bred by man to create variations of the Grey Wolf, but that, according to science is the starting point. We didn't put them here.
> They no longer have a valid purpose? Guide dogs, therapy dogs, drug sniffing and cadaver dogs, herders, guard dogs and most imortantly companions. If we start eliminating living creatures that, according to you, no longer have a "valid purpose" this world will become devoid of most animals except those that provide a food product for humans. The "valid purpose" test is a slippery slope. Perhaps someday, as history has demonstrated in the past, someone will determine whether you or I serve a valid purpose.
> This thread is about an irresponsible dog owner, who also happens to be an irresponsible parent allowing a 5 year old unsupervised access to a canine. It resulted in tragic consequences for the child. Should those dogs be put down? Probably. Should the parents be prosecuted for Failing to Provide the Necessities of Life for the child. Definitely. Should an entire species be eliminated because of this incident? The knee jerk reaction of the lunatic fringe would be Yes. How often do we want to rely on the lunatic fringe to decide what is best for our world?
> Since it is clear that some posts in this Thread are only designed to "stir the pot" and are devoid of any rational thought, I will refrain from taking the "bait" any further. I think I will go outside now and take my 120 pound Shepherd out for a run.


No we did not create dogs. We interfered with their natural evolution with selective breeding to manipulate and change their size, strength and many other characteristics. We created breeds of dogs that would not have developed without our careful interference.

There will always be some who believe animals are only dangerous if poorly treated or trained (environment and conditioning).
In my opinion, this ignores the nature of the beast.

People also love baby tigers. Can careful conditioning and treatment ensure that such an animal will not revert to it's natural tendencies?

Of course the answer is no.

Why should we think any differently for a pit bull or rotweiler?


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

...correct me if i'm wrong, speaking out of turn, or just assuming too much but, while you make some vaild points, i don't think milkman was referring to all dogs, just specific breeds.



Intrepid said:


> I disagree with your entire post. We did not "create" dogs. Canus lupus familiariaris (domesticated dog) evolved thousands of years ago from the Grey Wolf. It evolved in such a way as to become more social with man as it's interactions with the human species became more frequent. Eventually "flight distance" of the Wolf towards humans became somewhat diminshed. Evidence shows domesticated dogs have been around since 30,000 B.C. They may have been bred by man to create variations of the Grey Wolf, but that, according to science is the starting point. We didn't put them here.
> They no longer have a valid purpose? Guide dogs, therapy dogs, drug sniffing and cadaver dogs, herders, guard dogs and most imortantly companions. If we start eliminating living creatures that, according to you, no longer have a "valid purpose" this world will become devoid of most animals except those that provide a food product for humans. The "valid purpose" test is a slippery slope. Perhaps someday, as history has demonstrated in the past, someone will determine whether you or I serve a valid purpose.
> This thread is about an irresponsible dog owner, who also happens to be an irresponsible parent allowing a 5 year old unsupervised access to a canine. It resulted in tragic consequences for the child. Should those dogs be put down? Probably. Should the parents be prosecuted for Failing to Provide the Necessities of Life for the child. Definitely. Should an entire species be eliminated because of this incident? The knee jerk reaction of the lunatic fringe would be Yes. How often do we want to rely on the lunatic fringe to decide what is best for our world?
> Since it is clear that some posts in this Thread are only designed to "stir the pot" and are devoid of any rational thought, I will refrain from taking the "bait" any further. I think I will go outside now and take my 120 pound Shepherd out for a run.


----------



## cheezyridr (Jun 8, 2009)

this should explain alot

http://documentaryheaven.com/dogs-decoded/


----------



## doriangrey (Mar 29, 2011)

Milkman said:


> How do we diminish the world we live in by eliminating a man made breed? We created things that should not have been created, or at least that no longer have any valid purpose.
> 
> Breeding them out of existance is not man eliminating something created through natural evolution. It's man eliminating something WE put here.





Milkman said:


> No we did not create dogs. We interfered with their natural evolution with selective breeding to manipulate and change their size, strength and many other characteristics. We created breeds of dogs that would not have developed without our careful interference.
> 
> There will always be some who believe animals are only dangerous if poorly treated or trained (environment and conditioning).
> In my opinion, this ignores the nature of the beast.
> ...


Well put - I totally agree with you on all points!


----------



## Moosehead (Jan 6, 2011)

keto said:


> The thread isn't about dogs, or banning them. It's about stupid people. Leave child unsupervised, leave dogs in a place where child can go. Punish people who erred.
> 
> You can't totally protect society from stupidity. Banning animals or things doesn't change that.



I Agree, you can't fix stupid.


----------



## greco (Jul 15, 2007)

cheezyridr said:


> this should explain alot
> 
> http://documentaryheaven.com/dogs-decoded/


Very interesting and well done. I highly recommend watching it to anyone interested in this thread. Especially the experimental breeding of foxes in Russia and the raising of a wolf cub in a domestic setting.

Thanks for the link.

Cheers

Dave


----------



## Moosehead (Jan 6, 2011)

+1 

I didnt see that post, thanks.

I think the more you know about dogs (and their psychology) the more you can appreciate how and why they are as they are and act as they do.

Im more afraid of some of the people in this world than a large breed dog.


----------

