Pack of loose roaming dogs mauls boy *follow-up*

[Horsefeathers!]

I saw this on our local news tonight. It happened in the county I work in. While I do certainly believe the dog owner(s) should be held accountable for their loose roaming dogs, ESPECIALLY since three of these dogs apparently attacked a child before, I strongly disagree with this statement:

"People have to call us and tell us if a dog attacks another dog, chickens or anything like that because once they get the taste of blood, they're going for something else," says Wells.

That was the animal control officer involved. Many dogs that have high prey drives would not attack a human just because of "the taste of blood." Peaches killed a squirrel a few weeks ago and is still the most docile, submissive dog I know. Heck, many of my dogs would kill a mouse or squirrel or possibly chickens if they had the chance, but I don't believe it necessarily makes for the potential of human aggression. We are always saying how animal aggression doesn't equate to human aggression.

I think more focus needs to be made on the negligence of the dog owner(s) involved. This is the kind of thing that leads to hysteria and ultimately to BSL. There were two Labs involved, A Doberman, and a "bulldog mix"... I'm totally surprised they didn't outright say "Pit Bull," but that could still put a feather in the cap of people who include "Pit Bull types." One of the dogs they showed on the news looked more like a Chow mix to me, so I don't know which one that was in regard to this story. I don't know if that was their "bulldog mix" or not. The Dobe looked pretty much like a Dobe.

That county is a very rural farm area. I believe I heard last year that it's the state's top agricultural producer, so it's pretty much all farmland. The general mindset around there seems to be that dogs run loose; that's just what they do. I'd definitely like to see penalties for the people that let their dogs run loose and get into trouble, but heck, that county doesn't even have a shelter director at this point. That shelter/animal control has been incompetent and in turmoil for years. Notice that another county's animal control, separate from where the incident happened, is handling it. I can only assume that's why. I'll find out tomorrow when I go back to work.

While you're checking it out, notice the picture labeled "dog attack" on the left. Isn't that a Rottie they are using to pimp the story? There was no Rottie involved in the attack. I imagine Rottie owners would be furious at the unfair portrayal of their breed in this attack. I honestly can't tell if it's a Rottie or a Dobe from the way it's shown, but it looks Rottie to me.

Again, I certainly do hate that this kid was attacked. I hold the owner of those dogs 100% responsible. However, I am really uncomfortable with some aspects of this story like the "taste of blood" and the graphic photo used to pimp the story. I'd hate to see some of the inane legislation pop up here like I've seen elsewhere... if a dog runs down a fenceline barking at someone or chases squirrels, it's considered aggressive. That sort of thing.

Then again, it's entirely possible that with all the talk of BSL everywhere I look, I'm just reading more into is than there really is.

Thoughts? Here's the link to the news story.
Dogs attack boy

I think I'm going to write a letter. I don't know yet what I'm going to say, but I guess I'll feel better if I just say something.

[Canis erectus]

I'll agree whole heartedly that the dog owner should be charged, espescially since the dogs had previously attacked another kid. The dogs should (and probably will) be destroyed. Having lived in very rural areas myself I know first-hand how brazen some dog packs get when unsupervized and allowed to 'pack up'. I once lived in a little goldrush town in N. Calif where neighborhood dogs would often pack up and get into trouble. Not only that, but there are packs of feral dogs that live down in the ravines. They've probably been living there since the mining camp days, and they live off of deer and rabbits and such. One time I was actually hunted by a pack of them, and I've known other people who have been too. Lots of times these rural 'farm dogs' will go feral and in my opinion any dog headed down that path should be destroyed. Actually, to elaborate, not every feral dog will attack people but any feral dog with aggresive tendancies should be destroyed.

I think that most rural areas have their own checks and balance systems. Yes, many people tend not to contain their dogs in any way. And no, animal control is not typically any help at all, if there even is an animal control department. But dogs that roam out onto neighboring properties, especially those that start harassing other animals or people, will typically get shot eventually. Although the dog owners are generally not held accountable, it's pretty much accepted that "If'n I see's yer dog on my farm, I's is gonna shoot 'im." And although that's not the way things should be, it is the way things are. But I guess you're already aware of all that.

So going back to the article, in an ideal world the dog owner should be prosecuted although he may very well not. The dogs should be euthanized and I'm surprised someone else hadn't shot them yet if they actually were problem animals.

Oh, and about that Rottie picture... I'm fairly certain that I've seen that shot before... somewhere. I'm thinking movie advertisement of some sort.

[Seijun]

I knew a guy who was convinced that c@ts should not be kept around babies because the c@t would smelll milk on the baby's breath and "suck the life" out of the baby in an attempt to get the milk. No, I'm not joking. This dude was serious.

~Seij

[gooeydog]

"People have to call us and tell us if a dog attacks another dog, chickens or anything like that because once they get the taste of blood, they're going for something else," says Wells.

My own rant on this, as I've been dealing with it right now on my own street, and have in the past as well. There's a dog (pit x some stumpy short legged breed) a few houses down from us that is repeatedly left out to roam, and obviously has some defensive issues, as it barks at people, charges at them with its hackles up, and has more recently taken to nipping at peoples ankles while they walk down the street. Twice now, he's growled at me, once when he was in MY yard, the other when I was walking up the driveway at their neighbor's house (a friend of mine), and the other day I heard him barking, only to look outside and see him nipping at my cousin's ankles as he walked up our driveway... at the same time, my nephews were in the yard playing :o . Now, one of the little girls at the house took in a stray c@, and had it for a few days, then one day my friend asked where it had went, and the girl told her her brother didn't want it there, so he shot it and tossed it into the water, and I've heard other comments when walking by the house that make me reluctant to have them think I'm "out to get them". I originally planned to talk to the woman who lives there about the problem, but she's got a serious case of denial (insists that the dog's only problem is that "he doesn't like wheels"), and friendly suggestions (like saying "you really should keep him in the yard" as they apologize for him chasing my down the road barking) haven't worked.

Now, how does this apply to AC? Well, when I called there after the dog was in my yard growling at me, the man who answered told me that they couldn't do anything unless A. I wanted to file a formal complaint, which would have my name, address, etc on it.... gee, why not list a recipe on it for "forever sleep" doggy treats (ie: poisoned meat in the yard) too? or B. The dog had bitten someone (after I just told the guy it had been nipping peoples legs :roll: ), I suppose it has to send someone to the hospital before they'll decide it's a bite. ey've been like this in the past when I've called about other dogs too, so I know it isn't an isolated event.

Is it any wonder people don't bother reporting dog bites hen they get the runaround from AC, or fear retaliation from the people they're reporting?

HF, You're right that that statement by AC is wrong and not helping matters. Are you writing to the news station regarding their story, or to officials about the attack? A few things you might point out if to officials:
A. laws on owner responsibility- do you have any? If you do, they should be enforced, and the owners of this dog should BE prosecuted for negligence. If not, maybe they should consider passing some. The dogs should be PTS, too bad their owner was negligent, but it's not worth evaluating/tryign to rehab them when they already have one attack under their belt, and where would they go even if they were?
B. Better education for AC, and if need be, more staff, so that all reports can be looked into. In addition, the community needs to be encouraged to speak up about dangerous dogs, not just hide from them.

C. This attack showed that an array of dogs can bite, and seriously. BSL would not have helped this person much, if any, since A. it wouldn't have covered several of the dogs, and B. their owners were irresposible and likely would not have followed the BSL anyway.

D. I don't remember what else I was going to say :oops: will probably post again later.

And the media:
A. Many breeds of dog will attack small animals... greyhounds are one of the most docile and gentle breeds, but many breeders/rescuers will warn that they can kill c@ts, especially in outdoor situations where the c@ts may run and further their respemblance to prey. Same goes for dog aggression, look at any terrier breed.

[JackieMaya]

Quote:
"People have to call us and tell us if a dog attacks another dog, chickens or anything like that because once they get the taste of blood, they're going for something else," says Wells.

Yeah, whatever.

Jackie is the sweetest dog in the whole world, but if a little animal like a squirrel or rabbit gets in her yard, she'll kill it. She's a born hunter. But that doesn't mean that she's going to attack a person. The animal control officer who said this obviously doesn't know dogs very well.

[courtnek]

Seijun napisał(a):

I knew a guy who was convinced that c@ts should not be kept around babies because the c@t would smelll milk on the baby's breath and "suck the life" out of the baby in an attempt to get the milk. No, I'm not joking. This dude was serious.

~Seij

there are people who believe that cats should never get near babies because they will sleep on their faces and suffocate them. the milk story has been going around for decades...cats were originally (by Christianity) determined to be agents of the devil :roll: :roll: :roll: especailly black ones.
yet the egyptians worshipped them. one mans milk is another mans poison...

as far as "blood lust", thats not entirely untrue. some free roaming dogs that have killed sheep and cattle have developed it, thats probably where it got started. but its not blood lust, its the thrill of the chase and so rarely has anything to do with humans. dogs with a high prey drive will chase and kill whatever runs. people dont usually run fast enough for it to be caused by thrill of the chase. these dogs should be hauled off the street, and the owners should be put in jail. these arent normal house dogs, they are street dogs, which are actually more dangerous then wild dogs. wild dogs leave people alone. street dogs have no fear of people, and that where the problem evolves...

[Canis erectus]

Actually I'm far more afraid of the feral dogs that are out in the woods. The way I see it a dog that's gone feral in an urban area have a tendancy to be fearful of people, who often make them the targets of some cruel 'game'. A street saavy dog can generally scavange a decent amount of garbage and not have to too aggressive of a food drive. Some of these guys can probably be relocated into homes if they're actually caught and given the proper rehab.

Rural feral dogs are just plain nasty, which is why I feel 'loose dogs' laws need to be alot more strict in a rural area. These guys have to catch their dinner alot of times and so have a more agressive prey drive. When they pack together feral dogs tend to stay away from residential areas, but if you go into their territory I think most feral packs won't have any problem attacking since they don't live in fear of someone doing them harm on a daily basis. Like I said I had them come after me once, and I have no doubts that they wanted to eat us. Sorry, I'd rather run into a stray on the streets of a city or suburb than out in the woods.

[Horsefeathers!]

Well, here's a bit of a follow-up.

The story about the little boy has been all over the news and reported all sorts of ways. I saw one report where he passed out in the yard and that's where his mother found him. Another says that he made it to the door of his house. Who knows?

That's not to take anything away from the h*ll this kid and his family endured. I truly feel for them. I almost want to cry with the mother as she tortures herself about the little boy getting hurt and her not being there to protect him. I feel so bad for her.

Anyway, on to the natural progression of things. I can see how easy it is for BSL to get started in some places. Now that the esteemed animal control people in that area are telling people to be super cautious and report any "aggressive" dog (chasing chickens, squirrels... if it chases anything at all, it's vicious), people are getting super paranoid. Here's a follow-up report about a cop that just happened to roll up on a dog fight in progress. This fight involved two Pit Bulls and even more dangerous quotes from people in authority. This was reported as a follow-up to the boy getting mauled. Boy mauled. Pit Bulls fighting. Dangerous & vicious dogs. See how it's playing out? I haven't seen a report yet of overzealous Labs being dangerous even though two of the four dogs involved in the attack were Labs. No Pit Bulls involved (only a "bulldog mix") and already the focus is being shifted to Pit Bull fighting. They see dog fights all the time around here. Now it's big news? We need to be afraid?

Officers say fighting dogs and training them to fight is a sure fire way to turn a canine into a vicious dog.

Animal control officers are still investigating the attack, but they say breeding fighting dogs, keeping them on a chain that's too short, and abusing them makes them dangerous.

Now, I'm not coming out in favor of fighting dogs or keeping them in any of the conditions mentioned above, but Pit Bulls are the sought out dogs for back street thug fighters. Since they are the favorites and most likely to be involved in fights, wouldn't it be likely that folks will just want to get rid of the "risky" dogs with "information" like this coming from people in authority? Wouldn't treating ANY kind of dog in that manner potentially have dangerous effects? See the implication?

I don't know what to think. It's not so much the media in this case that's fueling the fire, though the potential for it is there, but the authorities that are giving blatantly erroneous or at least misleading information. After all, these are the people in charge, so they know these things, right?

Three of the dogs (two Labs and a "bulldog" mix) have already been euthanized because they didn't have proper rabies vacs. They are waiting for a court order to euthanize the "Doberman pincher" (their spelling).

It's late and I'm rambling, but I'm just wondering how long it will be before someone starts proposing legislation about banning "dangerous breeds" in this area? I've always thought it would be unlikely here because it's such a rural area and so many people have Pits and Pit-ish dogs. Now I'm sensing a growing hysteria and enough people around here are truly ignorant enough to buy into the dangerous dog thing... heck, a lot of people I've met still virtually dive into the bushes when they see Peaches (Dobe) even though she's never made a menacing gesture. People already expect certain dogs to be vicious and now their suspicions will, to them, be validated. Even though Labs were involved in the attack, I'll bet you'd never find a Lab on a BSL list.


The story.