|Topic Review (Newest First)|
|07-20-2016 06:56 AM|
|Concetta Parsons||well said|
|07-19-2016 03:48 PM|
Originally Posted by Alice13 View Post
|07-18-2016 02:25 AM|
|selzer||Maybe 'cause the thread is two years old.|
|07-18-2016 12:37 AM|
|InControlK9||link not working|
|07-12-2016 06:08 PM|
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
|05-31-2014 11:07 PM|
|Kayos and Havoc||
Originally Posted by gsdsar View Post
While I agree the dog might have had a loose screw, depending on the circumstances I may or may not PTS.
Very sad all around. I find it interesting that the reporter was prompting the child about barking and not being able to sleep and being scared due to the barking. If that and been an issue they should have complained.
All said, the dogs will most likely lose their lives. If they were loose and the attack unprovoked they should be PTS.
|05-31-2014 10:32 PM|
Originally Posted by llombardo View Post
The one thing it does do is it ensures that no one has to explain to another mother or father why that specific dog did serious damage or killed their child, after having had such a strike already against it. There is really nothing in place to ensure that whoever takes on such a dog is capable of managing it.
I am not saying that that is what has to happen to these dogs. I agree with Chris that there are just too many unexplained questions in this case.
And, I think there is a lot we can do with genetics. Even dogs who have weak nerves, problems with storms, quick movements, etc. Even these dogs in the right hands can become more confident, and less likely to bite, and they can be managed properly. Domestic animals all have a human responsible for them. So when an animal behaves badly, you can always say that a human is responsible. But that does not give the animal a pass so that it can do it again.
Think about the Rottweiler in Africa. It was "rehabilitated" by some Cesar-wannabe, and called a Service Dog, and brought into a crowded eating portion of a large mall. A small child walking by was severely attacked by the dog. Giving dogs second and third chances is not protecting children. If it is clear that a dog is attacking with an intent to kill, or if a dog seriously attacks a small child causing death or serious disfigurement, society has to ensure that that dog doesn't get a chance to do it again. AND if the owners can be found criminally negligent, they need to face consequences too.
I am not talking about every single bite. I am talking about attacks. I am talking about when dogs cross the line of communicating their fear or displeasure, and go into some type of prey mode or attack mode, where the act more like a wild animal than a domestic pet.
|05-31-2014 03:37 PM|
I have very mixed feelings on this. On the one hand, I believe any GSD who would deliberately harm a young child without significant provocation has a screw loose. On the other hand there are so many unknowns in what has been reported in this story that it is impossible to tell exactly what happened, exactly what the dogs did and their reason for doing it.
Why was a 4yo running about unsupervised? Was there any sort of provocation?
If the dogs were in some sort of "attack mode", why wasn't the neighbor who rescued the child before the mom got there also injured? Where did it happen? While it doesn't say where, it does imply that this may have been in the dogs' own yard as it says mom "heard the screams from 2 doors down" and then the camera pans exactly 2 doors down to show where the dogs live.
I'm beginning to think that it would be wise for every person with children and every dog owner to put up security cameras on their property. Then the exact circumstances surrounding things like this would be known. Like the video with the cat. That dog was clearly showing direct, intentional, predatory behavior against a child. The only reasonable response to that sort of behavior IMO is a "lead injection". But in this situation there is too much unknown for us to make any sort of judgment based on the very lacking news story. Hopefully the judge making the decision gets all of the facts from both sides.
|05-31-2014 03:30 PM|
|llombardo||It doesn't solve anything putting a dog to sleep when the owner is negligent, because they are getting another dog immediately after they failed the first one. A problem dog in one home isn't necessarily a problem dog in the right home, I have two of those that proves it. Most(not all) dogs that bite are showing signs of being capable of that and its ignored. If the dog has no training of boundaries then that dog has nothing. These dogs don't ask to be put in these homes, it's the luck of the crappy draw. We can't save them all, but I believe they deserve that chance. There are only two reasons a dog will bite, genetics and lack of training(human error), sadly we can't do anything about the genetics.|
|05-31-2014 12:13 PM|
The dog on the chain shows clear negligence on the part of the dog owners. I do not have a problem with putting a dog on a chain. But if you have a formidable dog, it is an attractive nuisance, children need to be blocked from access for their safety. And a chain simply does not do that. Also, a dog on a chain, can be guarding. The act of chaining a dog to something, for some reason puts the message to some days to guard.
If that dog was a GSD, then I would say put it down. Because the owners are not suited to the breed or to dog ownership, and the level of damage done, what is the point in wasting resources on such a dog, since the dog's owners who supposedly love the dog are unfit. It would be sad. Because it would have been totally preventable.
These dogs definitely have an area that seems secure. Animal control seemed to feel the area was secure enough to leave the dogs there to quarantine them, and they do check that. (My dog killed a raccoon and I called the health department, concerned about rabies, and they came out and told me to quarantine the dog, and where he was was fine to quarantine him.)
Here's the thing, how did the neighbor contain the dogs so fast and save the child. By the time a woman heard the screams of her child and ran two doors down, the child was pulled to safety. Some how the dogs bit her too? How? I have seen dogs in an all out attack. One guy would have a heck of a time pulling two dogs off and kenneling them. If the dogs were intent on killing the child, how did he prevent it?
I am trying to think how I would. I would probably grab one dog and drag it to the fence and shove it in and then go back for the other dog. And drag it off the child. How did the dogs get to the mother, but are not concerned with the neighbor at all. If he went into the pen, and lifted the child out of the pen, over the fence, or if he reached over and pulled the child to safety, but then, how did the dogs get to the mother?
I am trying to picture how this happened. If the dogs were only trying scratch and play with the child, rough play, being yelled at by the neighbor could drive them off of her, and then when the mother was screaming and hollering onto the scene the dogs might have amped up on that. But even then, how did she get away if the dogs were all out attacking. How did she get away without serious injuries?
The thing is, when one dog does something awful, lots of times the other dogs will join in, and it seems like things can escalate faster with more than one dog present.
I guess we will just have to see how the court rules on this, or if more information is released. Not sure why it would be. German Shepherds attack child is not necessarily that out of the ordinary from all I hear.
|This thread has more than 10 replies. Click here to review the whole thread.|