FACEBOOK rushes to defense of dog that mauled 4-year-old boy...

I made a comment on the FB page a few minutes ago stating the dog was vicious and should be put down and I just got banned from all of FB for 12 hours.

Morningglory
If food aggression is allowed there's a good chance they'll be aggressive in other areas as well.

There is no "good chance" about it, it will be only in select cases. Food aggression is flat out separate from human aggression, though it will undoubtedly appear the same if a human comes into the picture.

Constant reinforcement is needed otherwise it's a cue that the dog needs to take over. It's natures way survival of the fittest and all that. No fault with the dog it's what they're built to do.

This is only with individual dogs, and can be indicated by breed as well. Since you have working dogs, I wouldnt suspect you have seen much of a difference in your experience though.

There is more of a distinction between a wolf and Canis Lupus familiaris than you are communicating.

They're social animals like us but their methods are very different, far more brutal.

Humans can be far more brutal than dogs in their interactions.

Unfortunately the dog in this case has been allowed to go wild, hard to bring them back. The owner of this dog should never be allowed to own another animal, PERIOD. It would be hard to guarantee that dog will never hurt another animal/person no matter where he's kept. He's like a loaded gun with a brain and a bad attitude. He needs to be put down.

Agree and disagree. Its actually not hard to bring them back, once they are outside that environment. This is experience talking from doing just that with literally hundreds of dogs. The harsh reality, however, is that there are also plenty of dogs that compete for the same resources that have no issues whatsoever. Since that is the case, the probability for euthanasia being the correct course of action rises.

oooo, first double post.

reply to post by Christian Voice


Sounds like a good excuse to get your chores done!
Time will fly by.

reply to post by SprocketUK


I don't really care about being booted from FB it's the fact that the message they gave me when I try and log back in. It said I was banned from posting for 12 hours and hopefully that time I could reflect and learn some respect. All because I posted a post in disagreement with the other posts.

Learn some respect, REALLY!?!?! Morality lessons from Facebook ?

Christian Voice
reply to post by SprocketUK

 

I don't really care about being booted from FB it's the fact that the message they gave me when I try and log back in. It said I was banned from posting for 12 hours and hopefully that time I could reflect and learn some respect. All because I posted a post in disagreement with the other posts.

Learn some respect, REALLY!?!?! Morality lessons from Facebook ?

To be really fair aboutit, it's kind of daft to post opposition to a particular group within their page. If you oppose them, you should start your own group. you won't change any minds within a particular group, you must have realised that?

reply to post by Serdgiam

The point I was trying to make is even amongst well trained working dogs instinctual behavior, especially involving food, can undermine training.

Food is how we lured them in, kept them by our side in the first place. Food is a huge motivator even for well trained dogs.

Typically there are several working dogs that work/live together. As a group/pack they keep each other in line and learn from each other. Although imo it's a much healthier environment for dogs, they're still vulnerable to natural temptations. They need human influence/direction or they can become unpredictable.

Ranchers work hard training their dogs from pups. They have an exceptionally strong connection with them and the dogs are equally attached to livestock yet ranchers have seen how feeding habits can change overall behavior/mental state.

While food aggression in itself might not make a dog prone to human aggression, it could depend on the individual dog and how far he decides to take it, either way it's an aberration in training that needs to be addressed.

A city dog that's protective of his food dish is no different than a working dog that's got a taste for blood. They are both making decisions for themselves they should never have been allowed to make.

Ranchers don't humanize their dogs, they're constantly aware how quickly things can go bad. They don't want to lose a good working dog so they're very consistent and somewhat strict/demanding and the dogs are better off for it. Look at sled dog teams they'll tear each other up and you too if you're not a strong leader.

There is more of a distinction between a wolf and Canis Lupus familiaris than you are communicating.

I agree there are natural distinctions between the two but the modern domesticated dog hasn't been allowed to remain in its natural state. Breeding practices have impacted natural traits, both good/bad. Left in their natural state they would've remained true to their breed/natures.

What we have now is a species that's pretty far removed from their original form and because of inferior/ignorant breeding practices it's possible people are creating animals that can easily be as dangerous, if not more so, than a wolf.

Personally I wouldn't trust a food aggressive animal, too unpredictable/full of itself.

First off, I actually agree with most of what you are saying. However, your perspective is from a working dog platform, most likely using working breeds. While a sub-species distinction isnt necessarily made, the behavioral tendencies can vastly differ based on breed indication.

Morningglory
reply to post by Serdgiam

 

A city dog that's protective of his food dish is no different than a working dog that's got a taste for blood. They are both making decisions for themselves they should never have been allowed to make.

Dogs *always* make decisions for themselves. Always. The actual trick in training is to not only establishes lines of communication, but also teach them how to make the right decisions on their own. If you have ever trained for a truly advanced field (SAR, Schutzhund, etc), the dog NEEDS to know how to make their own decisions, or in some cases, people will die. Literally. And the two forms of aggression are not only different, they have different approaches in rehabilitation. They may be exacerbated by the "typical" human behavior to anthropomorphize, as you have mentioned.

What we have now is a species that's pretty far removed from their original form and because of inferior/ignorant breeding practices it's possible people are creating animals that can easily be as dangerous, if not more so, than a wolf.

I have never had any issues with the wolves I worked with. I agree quite a bit on this though. The genetic pool is really bad right now, and it is even filtering down into the mutts (which have previously been largely immune). Did you know that a dogs hearing ability drops off proportionally as they hit 20 lbs and under? To me, like not being able to give birth naturally, that is an indicator of some issues.

Personally I wouldn't trust a food aggressive animal, too unpredictable/full of itself.

And I have rehabilitated far too many to come to the same conclusion. I am someone who has worked with dogs in nearly every capacity imaginable, have worked with every breed out there in nearly every environment, and have worked with thousands upon thousands of dogs in total. Though, as I said, the harsh reality is that this was only because we had the resources. In the cases that we didnt, the dog was euthanized. Not an easy decision, if they are a dog you have worked with for months on end.

reply to post by Serdgiam

First off, I actually agree with most of what you are saying. However, your perspective is from a working dog platform, most likely using working breeds. While a sub-species distinction isnt necessarily made, the behavioral tendencies can vastly differ based on breed indication.

I agree working dogs are what I typically see and they are the exception/not the rule but even with good breeding/training some can be susceptible to the same bad behaviors as any dog. They might not be as prone to it as other breeds but breeding alone doesn't guarantee they'll be good workers. Ranchers still selectively pick the best of the litter.

Dogs *always* make decisions for themselves. Always. The actual trick in training is to not only establishes lines of communication, but also teach them how to make the right decisions on their own. If you have ever trained for a truly advanced field (SAR, Schutzhund, etc), the dog NEEDS to know how to make their own decisions, or in some cases, people will die. Literally. And the two forms of aggression are not only different, they have different approaches in rehabilitation. They may be exacerbated by the "typical" human behavior to anthropomorphize, as you have mentioned.

They do make decisions for themselves. Dogs are smart, they depend on their decision making abilities to survive and for that reason a poorly trained dog can be very scary, you can see the wheels turning. I also agree human behavior is a huge factor it can change how the dog reacts/doesn't react.

Obviously you are more knowledgeable and skilled than the average person and there's simply not enough of you to go around. People tend to approach most things from what they know and they know human nature best. That's why they so easily fall into the anthropomorphizing trap, they're at a loss as to what else to do.

I agree humans are more brutal than dogs, that's why we made it to the top of the food chain. Modern people forget we're all animals. They tend to think humans are special and our friend the dog is too and for the majority that's probably true.

We are domesticated man and just like with dogs sometimes the training doesn't take. People more easily recognize human aberrant behavior but are almost blind to it or ignore it in their pets. People rarely second guess humans exhibiting erratic behavior but they do it time and again with dogs.

I would say, for the most part, people are to blame but as long as inferior breeding practices are allowed people need to be especially aware and responsible. Not an area to be so cavalier.

eta: Just wanted to add a thank you for your rehabilitative efforts. I don't doubt you've been successful but most of us simply don't have the time or resources to do what you do. I train my pups when they're very young and I haven't had issues with aggression but we took in a "rescue" that required retraining after the fact. In no way do I pretend to know how to do that, we had to give him back, it was too hard on our well behaved dogs/cats, he was best left to professionals like you.

Morningglory
reply to post by Serdgiam

 

I agree working dogs are what I typically see and they are the exception/not the rule but even with good breeding/training some can be susceptible to the same bad behaviors as any dog. They might not be as prone to it as other breeds but breeding alone doesn't guarantee they'll be good workers. Ranchers still selectively pick the best of the litter.

Yes, and ranchers/farmers also have significantly different requirements. You want a dog with high drive. It doesnt even particularly matter what that drive is, since they can all be funneled into motivation for achieving whatever goal is in your sight.

They do make decisions for themselves. Dogs are smart, they depend on their decision making abilities to survive and for that reason a poorly trained dog can be very scary, you can see the wheels turning. I also agree human behavior is a huge factor it can change how the dog reacts/doesn't react.

Obviously you are more knowledgeable and skilled than the average person and there's simply not enough of you to go around. People tend to approach most things from what they know and they know human nature best. That's why they so easily fall into the anthropomorphizing trap, they're at a loss as to what else to do.

I think the issue, like so many topics, is that the polar opposites are equally incorrect. You have people who say things like "this breed must be done away with!" and "dogs cant make choices!" And, then you have the people who say they are basically just humans with fur. Both are pretty far from the truth.

The biggest difficulty I had when training dogs was training the humans. I would literally walk out if they said it was all up to me, the trainer. "YOU need to fix our dog" is something I have heard quite a few times. These people didnt realize that it was, very likely, their own behavior which resulted in the problems they were facing. Without resolving those, no matter what I did, nothing would change after I wasnt actively training.

I think dogs are significantly more capable than humans in several ways, but the reverse is true as well. Its why we work so well together, and have for thousands of years!

I would say, for the most part, people are to blame but as long as inferior breeding practices are allowed people need to be especially aware and responsible. Not an area to be so cavalier.

I agree. The issue is it is more societally acceptable to claim yourself as a victim rather than claim responsibility. Its frustrating to me, personally, because this is a problem that CAN BE FIXED! It just requires education and learning.. But, it seems more common place to go after the "scary things" than actually approach the problem. We see the same thing with guns.

The issue is tough too, since backyard breeders and legitimate breeders both do different things to equally destroy the overall genetic pool. Honestly, after working in a shelter, I can say that the groups that are the most inhibitive to actually coming up with solutions are the "bleeding heart activists." Thats another topic though.

Most people think they are an expert since they have lived with dogs, and I think that doesnt help much either. Its like saying you are an expert electrical engineer because you have used electricity your whole life.

Hopefully someday, we can actually start to approach these issues intelligently and effectively. Until then... this type of thing will continue to happen.

reply to post by Serdgiam

Great post. Imo we really need to give the species a time out to let them recover/get healthy.

It will take several generations of responsible breeding and hefty fines for violators. People might have to give up the idea of having a dog as a pet for awhile.

People simply aren't being responsible with most pets. Exotic snakes being released in Florida is a great example.

We need to rethink a lot of our practices.

buster2010
reply to post by chiefsmom

 

You may want to learn a few things about breeds of dogs both the Mastiff and Great Danes are gentle breeds so a offspring of those dogs will be gentle a pitbull however was bred for fighting and killing it's opponent it is a well known violent breed. So well known that many cities have made it illegal to own one.

Mastiffs are not gentle dogs in general. They are descendants of the Molosser breeds that the Romans used as war dogs. They have been bred to a more gentle dog, especially towards family members, however they can get quite aggressive if they perceive a threat to their "pack." This threat can be something as innocent as children playing a game of rough and tumble.

www.news10.net... well the judge sided with the dog over the foolish baby sitter and the dog is to be spared

PHOENIX -- A judge on Tuesday opted not to put to death a pit bull that attacked a 4-year-old boy last month, but ordered it to be defanged, neutered and to have a microchip implanted. The story of Mickey mauling Kevin Vicente's face has gone viral since the incident took place Feb. 20. Followers of the case on social media have taken sides for or against the pit bull. About a dozen supporters wearing "Save Mickey" T-shirts attended the dog's hearing Tuesday, some crying and reacting under their breath or to each other. Kevin was under the care of his babysitter on Feb. 20. Mickey's owner was the son of Kevin's babysitter. Mickey was tied to an 18-foot-long chain and kept in a dog house in the common area of the babysitter's Phoenix apartment complex.

soo seems for supportetrs of the dog in question this is a victory

Having been around dogs all of my life, owning downs, and ultimately working in an animal shelter there are a few things that need to be answered:
Having read though the article and went looking the following can be stated:

Here is the facts, from what is gathered:

The owner had the animal, which was not fixed at the time, out on his property, tied up via chain. There was a bone close to the animal. The gate that is in front of where the animal lived, was left opened, or opened up. A person was watching his girlfriends child, and the child wandered onto the property with the animal. The child went for the bone and the animal attacked, mauling the child.

Those are the facts of the case, now for the analysis of such. If the animal was running free, or there was no fence or means of control over said animal, then yes, the animal represents a clear danger to the general public and should be put down.

But if there are signs all on the property that warns people of the animals presence, and it is restrained, then the answer is no, the animal should not be put down. The problem here is that the child did go onto the property, that is trespassing, and there are signs up all around warning people of the animals presence. However, where was the babysitter in all of this? Why did not the person watching the child, stop the child from going where there was obviously a dog tied up, with warnings all around?

The dog is going on instinct, there is a bone, in the animals instinct and basic mind, that is the animals food, not to be messed with, the moment the child reached for the bone, the animal was going to attack, of that there can be no doubt. The fact that the animal was not fixed, only added fuel to that fire.

Most people who own dogs, and are responsible owners, can only do so much to prevent such actions from taking effect. While it is sad, the ultimate responsibility is not the animal’s owner in this case, but that of the babysitter, for not looking out after the child and letting the child wander into that dangerous situation.

I liken this to the many cases of where a child wanders onto a property with a pool and gets injured, who is at fault, the owner of the pool, of the guardian of the child, that allowed the child to wander off and get into that situation?

While the owner of the animal should take some responsibility for what happened, the babysitter should take more of the responsibility for the incident as the child was in his care. He did not do his job and is not looking to place the blame on the dog and the owner, which is equally wrong.

_damon
reply to post by StallionDuck

 

You got to be kidding me. Are we really on an alternative forum?

I dont need to reread. Even if you didnt write it, i can read between the lines. You are overreacting because the "victim" was a child or you just hate animals that can present a danger to your dear safety.

Did the dog kill? NO. He acted in self-defense of his meager belongings and his tiny piece of land which represent his whole freedom but you are far too evolved and "reasoned" than to try and put yourself in his schoes right? Not that you could even if you tried tho. No, with people like you, as long as a human being is hurt by anything else thats not human, it deserves death. You are not really different from psychopaths imo. You want the death of creatures you never met, based only on your tiny subjective understanding of life and your biased wrong "justice".

I dont know where you are going and really dont care. I know where im going and it is far from this thread which is a total joke.

Have fun!

I love it when people reply on a thread and say "I'm done with this thread" 20 times before they can actually find their way out... If even just to say their opinion then shut out so they don't see that the response was justified over what they ranted about in the first place. Self intitlement? Peace of mind? Just plain selfish?

If you read the thread, much of what you ranted about is explained in the OP. I would also like you to point out my hatred of animals.

You see.. the problem is that you "really don't care". As you've said, you stear far away from any constructive conversation. You just prefer to throw your opinions around for everyone to know where you've marked your spot, but you don't want to hear anything to counter your opinion. How fair is that? I could go on about this behavior, but "I don't really care and I'm going far from the topic as possible". lol

By the way, a dog is hardley "self defending" if his bone is being messed with. You might also want to note that the kid was running by and the dog jumped the kid. So I'm kind of confused how a kid touches a bone while running by. Perhaps the dog though "oh my bone!" and attacked? If the dog is THAT defensive.. It should die. Unfortunately, the judge believed otherwise. Like you, he felt the dog was more important than the child's safety. The dog IS a murderer, to boot. That's pretty messed up, if you ask me.

reply to post by RalagaNarHallas


Thank you for the update! So there are more facts in this story that actually compare to other stories. It's sad that the judge went this way, which I find heartless based on the facts of the case. This dog should have been condemed.

Points: (According to the link RalagaNarHallas provided with updates and rulings)

- A judge on Tuesday opted not to put to death a pit bull that attacked a 4-year-old boy last month, but ordered it to be defanged, neutered and to have a microchip implanted.

Defanged, huh? Just assume put it down, IMO.

- About a dozen supporters wearing "Save Mickey" T-shirts attended the dog's hearing Tuesday, some crying and reacting under their breath or to each other.

This furthers my opinion that some people are horribly sad, choosing animal over a child. I stil say racism plays a part in this to some degree.

- Mickey was tied to an 18-foot-long chain and kept in a dog house in the common area of the babysitter's Phoenix apartment complex.

18 foot chain? Apartment complex COMMON AREA??? Seriously? How is this not idiocy? A COMMON AREA! Where everyone has access to. It's not his property. It's common property belonging to ALL people in this complex. That's also some reach for a dog in a common area.

- Mickey's owner was the son of Kevin's babysitter.

Wait... it gets better...

- Villa brought her 5-year-old son there, and he and Kevin were playing near the dog.

So tell me again how it was the MOTHER's or BABYSITTER's fault??? Especially when "Guadalupe Villa, whose boyfriend's mother is Kevin's babysitter, was at the apartment complex the day of the attack."

It was the boyfriend, the dog's OWNER's fault.



Oh yeah... No doggie bone issue.

- Kevin walked within the radius of the 18-foot chain and the dog attacked Kevin from behind. Villa said her boyfriend tried to pull the dog off of Kevin, but the dog kept attacking. It is unclear exactly what triggered the attack.


So why is it that this child was let around this dog, with the owner knowing full well that it was aggressive??? Why was this damned dog anywhere near this apartment in the first place??!!??

- The pit bull also killed Villa's German Shepherd puppy about seven months ago, when the dog ran across the pit bull's area, Villa said.

It's a murderer!

- The "Beware of Dog" sign placed at the residence and the fact that Mickey was tied to a chain signified Mickey's owners knew the dog could act violently, Griffith said.

Another bit of proof showing the owner, the boyfriend, knew about the problem at hand.

- "This is a tragedy. This is just horrible for this child, oh my goodness. But I think there are a lot of adults responsible," Griffith said.

And yet the judge let the dog live. Not even a slap on the wrist of the owner of all those "adults responsible".

- "We're not talking about a poodle," Griffith said. "We're not talking about a dog going up and licking this child's face. We're talking about a dog that attacked this little boy."

And yet... People still applauded??? Seriously???

- The group of Mickey supporters responded with a resounding, "Yes," and clapped.

Still not convinced it's the dog's fault? That the dog isn't a murderer?

- Rummel said. Mickey shows signs of predatory behavior, especially based on how he has attacked a small boy and killed a small dog, Rummel said.



I would like to get an honest reason, even though I doubt very seriously I would get a 100% honest answer...

Why do people choose pit bulls over other dogs? Seriously. Why if not for the fact that it's a dominant, powerful dog. If it's for protection... How does that not raise alarms? I've been around a good hand full of pit bulls to know... they are NOT the idea dog to have around. Not everyone is a damned expert on how to train and deal with a pit bull. My unlce says he HAS to be dominant over his pit and will not let someone be less because he knows that at that time, that pit bull will make his own rules and WILL act out and WILL be aggresive enough to get out of control. I've seen this first hand. Some will say "he don't know how to... doesn't know... bla bla bla". So everyone else does? How many people that have them dont know...bla bla? Isn't that a warning sign? If someone that's had them all his life shouldn't own one... Neither should anyone else, especially those who haven't!

It's like saying... Geee... I think I'll buy a lion, today. Too big? How about a bobcat? Same size as a pit... and will eat your face off given the chance! Ever knew a loving cat NOT to turn on you when you weren't looking? How will you know you didn't p!$$ it off that day? You wouldn't know till you turned away from it.

reply to post by StallionDuck

They believe the problem is with the person caring for this dog. - See more at: www.abovetopsecret.com...

Beliefs have nothing to do with facts.

Its a fact a dog owner should be responsible, its a fact that many time they arent.

On some part, I can understand that the babysitter should have been watching the child more closely, but if there is a dog on this property that has the potentual to hurt someone else, then it should not be there in the first place, and should be somewhere where it can not do harm to others. - See more at: www.abovetopsecret.com...

So the dog belonged to the babysitter?

Having such an animal around young children is not a good idea. - See more at: www.abovetopsecret.com...

So if the animal was the babysitters you must agree that responsibility falls solely on the babysitter as both the child and animal fall under their responsibilities?

Still, people feel the dog should be spared because they believe the problem lies elswhere. Sympathisers for the beast say that they are not choosing the dog over the child, but it seems that's exactly what they are doing. - See more at: www.abovetopsecret.com...

Yes the dog might of had issues with aggression when it has food or a bone, whomever raised the dog is responsible for that.

No they are using logic and not choosing the dog over the child, you seem to be trying to creating Dog vs Child which is more innocent debate because maybe you do not understand what responsible dog ownership is.

One commenter even said: Guest •7 hours ago "I value a dogs life more than a child's, especially a Mexican child. " How racist! - See more at: www.abovetopsecret.com...

Do you think that comment was meant to do anything other pull at strings of readers, from both sides?

And what does a racist have to do with the case at hand other than create controversy and be used as a derailing tactic to debate such a racist comment.

Innocent? This dog seems hardly the innocent type.

Ah,

So you're one of those types are ya?

Could you maybe elaborate on what is an innocent type of dog in your opinion?

This has really gotten to me that people really act this way. - See more at: www.abovetopsecret.com...

Yes it has gotten to me as well that people looking after children with a dog around and all the accidents that have happened in the past and been discussed/debated here and all over the net and other forms of media that adults are still so irresponsible when it comes to children and animals.

amkia
There is a fine line between the pet’s life and the human life. What if the kid lost his life during this? Would it be the same?

Pet owner is responsible for the action of his/her pet no matter the race or type (could be anaconda or crocodile for heaven sake).

Shoot the damn dog there is no (this is my personal bone contests).

I am confused by your post,

If the pet owner is responsible why shoot the "damn dog"?

reply to post by nugget1

Allow a dog to have a bone with a four year old in the room without supervision? - See more at: www.abovetopsecret.com...

I believe the dog was chained outside.

Just correcting that it was not inside.

reply to post by StallionDuck


Its always good to remember that "Pit Bulls" is a blanket term, so which breed(s) are you referring to?

The term means different things to different people, and most people wouldnt be able to tell the difference between an American Bulldog and a "Pit Bull."

The interaction with your family and their dog can happen with any breed, many are much more dangerous than any of the breeds under the "Pit Bull" generalization. "Dominance" is not a breed specific trait.

I like them for several reasons:

They are great with kids. They can have a high pain threshold, and are specifically bred to have no HA or redirection. This means kids can pretty much do whatever to them, and they will love it. There are exceptions to this, especially when considering an improperly bred dog, or improper training (which stands true for every breed).

They are one of the most capable breeds in existence, in almost every respect. There are more "Super Dogs" of amstaff/staffie lineage than *ANY* other breed. They dont do too well in Schutzhund though, due to HA being intentionally bred out.

They are one of the goofiest breeds, and tend to be absolute clowns.

The reasons I do not personally own one, unless it was a mix of sorts, is because they are not protective enough. This will vary, obviously, but as a standard they are simply not as protective/territorial as many other breeds.

It all probably sounds like nonsense when basing it off of the media, but Ill take my personal experience spanning thousands upon thousands of dogs over sensationalist and unproductive headlines.

The most sound solution would be to educate people better on dogs. The problem with this, however, is that most trainers really only know a smidge more than the people they are training (and their dogs). Most dont really do actual research into these things, nor do they have an avenue to do so. They just read some books and go to it. Meaning, the "experts" in this field tend to have very little actual education or scientific training when it comes to canines. Its all jumbled, which leads to a lot of the problems we see today.

eta: In this specific case, it sounds like a "win" for the bleeding hearts. Which, not only means the mutilation of this specific dog, but most likely the death of one in a shelter that could have used all this publicity and that had zero issues. C'est la vie...