'Ax Men' star's daughter mauled to death by dog

[Baja28]

That's just not gonna' happen. She's only aggressive to adults and has never shown any ill emotion to children/kids.

This is the logic I don't get. What kind of parent allows their child to be in this situation by owning a vicious breed?

I'd bet $$ that the Rott in this story never showed any ill emotion to the toddler he mauled and killed.

 

[Dakota]

Dogs are very simple critters, they are easy to manipulate and mold. But you have to understand 'dog' to do it. The vast majority of pet owners have no clue.

Far sadder that humans are stupid enough to leave a small child unsupervised with an animal they do not ruly understand.

I disagree that you have to understand 'dog' to do it. I think a dog can turn at any time and I have grown up with dogs all my life and have been around many trainers of dogs. There could be many reasons for the change in personality; in my situation, with my dog, it was recently learned he is going blind.

These people have to live with the choice they made and they can never take back what is done. Hopefully others will learn from their grave mistake.

 

[Chasey_Lane]

This is the logic I don't get. What kind of parent allows their child to be in this situation by owning a vicious breed?

I don't buy "this breed is mean" stuff. I personally think each dog is unique and if they are mean, it's because it's part of them.

When I was growing up I was always outside in the backyard with my dogs w/out my parents. I had a shepherd/chow mix that would bite anyone that ran. Yes, all you had to do was run. Well, eventually we knew not to run around her. Should she have been put down? If so, why? I could tackle her and lay on her and she'd just lay there. But run and watch out...

 

[thatguy]

No, it doesn't. Some take to the training better, because of natural factors, yes. That training involves clear provocation of the dog. However, all breeds should have a natural bent toward not biting in unprovoked situations. The simple result of 40,000 + years of being killed for biting when it wasn't warranted.

Nice to see you again, I see you are still as antagonistic and ignorant as ever, and so I think I'll just have to put you on my ignore list! See ya!

gotta love when the dummies get their panties in a wad when you use their argument against them.

If it's all easy prey work, not so tough, but put defense on the dog from a good decoy and they'll tuck tail and run. Certain types of work take more than training, they can also require disproportianate amounts of certain drives. Certain breeds are 'pre-programmed' in a fashion...

so which is it, 40,000+ years of not being killed for biting people or disproportionate amounts of certain drives that ensure they will continue to ATTACK PEOPLE even when the person tries to defend themselves?

 

[Baja28]

I don't buy "this breed is mean" stuff. I personally think each dog is unique and if they are mean, it's because it's part of them.

When I was growing up I was always outside in the backyard with my dogs w/out my parents. I had a shepherd/chow mix that would bite anyone that ran. Yes, all you had to do was run. Well, eventually we knew not to run around her. Should she have been put down? If so, why? I could tackle her and lay on her and she'd just lay there. But run and watch out...

Pitts and Rotts top the list because they don't just bite, they maul. They clamp down and don't let go. They turn without warning. I firmly believe it's the breed and the research proves it. I fear them and will never own one. A childs life is not worth the risk. JMO

 

[morningbell]

Agree! And there are ways to ensure the safety of people w/out having to get rid of an animal.

Just like I said, doggy isn't allowed near the baby.

This is the logic I don't get. What kind of parent allows their child to be in this situation by owning a vicious breed?

I'd bet $$ that the Rott in this story never showed any ill emotion to the toddler he mauled and killed.

I love this book series..... Good Dog Carl

 

[thatguy]

Just like I said, doggy isn't allowed near the baby.



I love this book series..... Good Dog Carl

the blind eye is strong with this one.....

 

[TurboK9]

I disagree that you have to understand 'dog' to do it. I think a dog can turn at any time and I have grown up with dogs all my life and have been around many trainers of dogs. There could be many reasons for the change in personality; in my situation, with my dog, it was recently learned he is going blind.

These people have to live with the choice they made and they can never take back what is done. Hopefully others will learn from their grave mistake.

Oh I agree with you. But you are bringing into it environmental, medical, physiological changes.... I'm talking purely our impact, what we as humans can manipulate them into doing. I've never met a 'complex' dog, who was healthy and mentally intact, and was not easy to mold.

I've worked with a good many dogs whose owners would swear up and down the dog would never _____ (fill in the blank), and got the dog to ______ with a minimum of effort using the proper stimuli. Simple if you understand them.

 

[TurboK9]

Agree! And there are ways to ensure the safety of people w/out having to get rid of an animal.

Sure if one is willing to crate and or muzzle, etc, whenever the dog is around people. Training maybe... but they'd really have to commit to it, it's a LOT of work with an aggressive dog. I'll admit I'm a hardass on this topic... My own dogs are trained for protection and have heavy bitework training, both for competition and practical family protection, but I still have a zero tolerance policy for unprovoked aggression... My dogs can't protect if they're crated or muzzled, and are in actuality, very friendly unless heavily provoked. The neighborhhod kids call Harley "Licky".

Anyway, I don't mean to come across as judgemental or whatnot, but know I probably am... I just don't want to see someone get bit or the dog get put down if it doesn't have to happen.

 

[TurboK9]

Pitts and Rotts top the list because they don't just bite, they maul. They clamp down and don't let go. They turn without warning. I firmly believe it's the breed and the research proves it. I fear them and will never own one. A childs life is not worth the risk. JMO

Not to be a wiseguy, but to what research do you refer? I'd like to read it.

 

[cattitude]

to what research do you refer? I'd like to read it.

Somebody mentioned something about butt crack...or was that another thread?

 

[Baja28]

Not to be a wiseguy, but to what research do you refer? I'd like to read it.

There are threads on this where all of the back up was posted, much by me (maybe as mikeinsmd). No disrespect but I'm not going through all the hoops to prove it all over again. It's readily available on the WWW.

Somebody mentioned something about butt crack...or was that another thread?

:blinders:

 

[RoseRed]

The rabid dog was just shot and killed in To Kill a Mockingbird.

 

[Dakota]

Oh I agree with you. But you are bringing into it environmental, medical, physiological changes.... I'm talking purely our impact, what we as humans can manipulate them into doing. I've never met a 'complex' dog, who was healthy and mentally intact, and was not easy to mold.

I've worked with a good many dogs whose owners would swear up and down the dog would never _____ (fill in the blank), and got the dog to ______ with a minimum of effort using the proper stimuli. Simple if you understand them.

The problem comes into play here because an environment can change, especially when a child is around.. and it can seem to change when a dog is experiencing a health problem(s) (such as going blind) and those aren't always easily detected... of course that is going to cause changes in the animals mental health.... just like it would our own.

I think some breeds are more prone to be aggressive but frankly no dog really should be trusted with young children, IMO.

 

[TurboK9]

There are threads on this where all of the back up was posted, much by me (maybe as mikeinsmd). No disrespect but I'm not going through all the hoops to prove it all over again. It's readily available on the WWW.

Funny. In the case of the Pits, temperament testing records from the ATTS place them at #1 for temperament and stability. That's the only formal, proven research I know of that involves Pit Bull aggression and is backed by solid data. everything else I've ever seen is conjecture and revolves around the relative handful of incidents every year (considering how many bites all told are reported annually).

Don't own a Pit, never will. Not saying you should either or that you should even like them... Just the facts as I know 'em.

 

[TurboK9]

The problem comes into play here because an environment can change, especially when a child is around.. and it can seem to change when a dog is experiencing a health problem(s) (such as going blind) and those aren't always easily detected... of course that is going to cause changes in the animals mental health.... just like it would our own.

I think some breeds are more prone to be aggressive but frankly no dog really should be trusted with young children, IMO.

The smallest change in behavior, especially with aggression, is cause for concern. The problem is people ignore signs (like this Rott biting a previous person) until the poo hits the fan. Not tough if the dog is with you and not living in the yard in a box. MOST of the time, there ARE signs. Exceptions do happen, but the majority of the time there will be signs. Even a yawn can be an indicator to back off, but people don't understand a yawn as stress relief... they assume doggy is sleepy. Wagging the tail does NOT mean doggy is happy, it means he has excess energy (maybe from 'happy', maybe not) or announcing. Posture... a slight rolling of the eyes... We miss a lot. Just because people didn't notice or ignored them doesn't mean they were'nt there.


And yes, NO dog. Chihuahuas have killed infants. Too many kids have no respect for dogs anyway... all up in their faces, grabbing, hitting... Parents need to teach their kids.

 

[Baja28]

Funny. In the case of the Pits, temperament testing records from the ATTS place them at #1 for temperament and stability. That's the only formal, proven research I know of that involves Pit Bull aggression and is backed by solid data. everything else I've ever seen is conjecture and revolves around the relative handful of incidents every year (considering how many bites all told are reported annually).

Don't own a Pit, never will. Not saying you should either or that you should even like them... Just the facts as I know 'em.

Here, there's plenty more but I'm not going to search them...

The deadliest dogs

Merritt Clifton, editor of Animal People, has conducted an unusually detailed study of dog bites from 1982 to the present. (Clifton, Dog attack deaths and maimings, U.S. & Canada, September 1982 to November 13, 2006; click here to read it.) The Clifton study show the number of serious canine-inflicted injuries by breed. The author's observations about the breeds and generally how to deal with the dangerous dog problem are enlightening.

According to the Clifton study, pit bulls, Rottweilers, Presa Canarios and their mixes are responsible for 74% of attacks that were included in the study, 68% of the attacks upon children, 82% of the attacks upon adults, 65% of the deaths, and 68% of the maimings. In more than two-thirds of the cases included in the study, the life-threatening or fatal attack was apparently the first known dangerous behavior by the animal in question. Clifton states:

If almost any other dog has a bad moment, someone may get bitten, but will not be maimed for life or killed, and the actuarial risk is accordingly reasonable. If a pit bull terrier or a Rottweiler has a bad moment, often someone is maimed or killed--and that has now created off-the-chart actuarial risk, for which the dogs as well as their victims are paying the price.

Clifton's opinions are as interesting as his statistics. For example, he says, "Pit bulls and Rottweilers are accordingly dogs who not only must be handled with special precautions, but also must be regulated with special requirements appropriate to the risk they may pose to the public and other animals, if they are to be kept at all." DOG BITE LAW - Statistics about dog bites in the USA and elsewhere

 

[TurboK9]

Here, there's plenty more but I'm not going to search them...

OK that's what I thought. Backs the power and 'tenacity' of the bite, but not the temperament in general. I don't think anyone will argue that they will eff you up good if they do bite.

Thanks I was curious.

 

[itsbob]

OK that's what I thought. Backs the power and 'tenacity' of the bite, but not the temperament in general. I don't think anyone will argue that they will eff you up good if they do bite.

Thanks I was curious.

Well, lets look at the statistics.. He cites three breeds are responsible for 74% of attacks..

Three breeds represent what percentage of the total amount of breeds?? <1%??

So less than 1% of all dog breeds are responsible for 74% of dog/human attacks.. I think that is astronomical proof that there is a reason NOT to own those three breeds..

If 1% of all dog breeds make up 74% of attacks I'd say that speaks volumes to those 3 breeds temperament . I mean, if you figure a NORM would be 1% should be responsible for 1% of attacks..

 

[TurboK9]

Well, lets look at the statistics.. He cites three breeds are responsible for 74% of attacks..

Three breeds represent what percentage of the total amount of breeds?? <1%??

So less than 1% of all dog breeds are responsible for 74% of dog/human attacks.. I think that is astronomical proof that there is a reason NOT to own those three breeds..

If 1% of all dog breeds make up 74% of attacks I'd say that speaks volumes to those 3 breeds temperament . I mean, if you figure a NORM would be 1% should be responsible for 1% of attacks..

" are responsible for 74% of attacks that were included in the study,"

Wow global warming science applied to dogs!

That one bit tells me that he was not studying ALL attacks, just those resulting in severe mauling and death. Which leaves out the vast majority of attacks. Check the CDC site, you'll see what I mean.

I won't argue that they don't do more damage. Hell I won't even argue that they may be more prone to incidents due to mental instability issues given the current poor breeding practices and such by those who have no idea what they are doing. Even Dals suffered from this after that stupid Disney movie... LOL.

But these three breeds sure as heck did not account for 74% of ALL dog attacks.

These breeds are not a new thing. They've been around a lot longer than they've had a bad rap. The bad rap happened in the last 20 or so years. So what changed? Popularity with the wrong people. People owning them for the wrong reasons.