Another sad Pit Story

[bonster]

Would an unleashed dog who ran into traffic (maybe with the 'violent' idea of chasing a bird) and got hit get pity? The dog can chose to go or stop - right?

You are placing the dog's judgement in the human context.

Shouldn't we humans get our own house in order first?

As for 'moral account' - I wonder what that should mean?

If two kids fight and one seriously injures the other, there would of course be no question of the death penalty!!! and questions would surely be asked of the parents.

But a dog (with an owner/"parent") attacking any human?? Shoot the dog -- job done? How is that moral?

I think we have enough disgraces within our own race to deal with before we start picking holes in another that we have chosen to domesticate.

 

[bridey_01]

How can they be held responsable if they have learned these behaviours and never once been told it is wrong, nor corrected for it?
You can get any dog to attack someone if it is constantly allowed to display aggressive behaviours without any kind of input from you. This deosn't mean they are "bad" dogs.

 

[casablanca1]

"Would an unleashed dog who ran into traffic (maybe with the 'violent' idea of chasing a bird) and got hit get pity? The dog can chose to go or stop - right?"

Oh, for heaven's sake, try to come up with a decent argument. A dog running free who gets hit by a car is hardly comparable to a dog who uses his freedom to attack another dog or a person. (of course, if the dog gets hit while crossing a road to attack someone, that's perfect)

"I think we have enough disgraces within our own race to deal with before we start picking holes in another that we have chosen to domesticate."

I think dogs are perfect. But when individual dogs start trying to literally pick holes in me or my dogs, I want something done to solve the problem. Saying that it's the owner's fault doesn't solve the problem of what to do with a dog who has (through whoever's fault) learned the joys of biting and killing.

 

[casablanca1]

How can they be held responsable if they have learned these behaviours and never once been told it is wrong, nor corrected for it?
You can get any dog to attack someone if it is constantly allowed to display aggressive behaviours without any kind of input from you. This deosn't mean they are "bad" dogs.

If we never interupt a normal dog's agression displays, it's true that they might escalate to the point where the dog will bite. It's not true that the dog's agression will typically progress to the point where they'll savage their victim. That's a very unusual behavior for a dog, and it comes from a very specific situation or dog. A normal dog might do it if pushed very, very hard -a person, for instance, who is attacking the dog physically and repeatedly and the dog can't flee. A normal dog, in normal circumstances, bites and backs off. This is pretty ingrained behavior, and isn't easily overturned even if their owner is a jerk who encourages the dog to be aggressive. That's why the worst jerks always wind up with fighting breeds, who are less inclined to back off.

My definition of a bad dog isn't one who has ever bitten. All dogs will bite, under the right circumstances. But I've seen dogs who enjoyed biting, who throughly relished their attacks on humans or their fellow dogs, and those are bad dogs, no matter whose fault it was that they weren't better trained or managed.

 

[bonster]

Oh, for heaven's sake, try to come up with a decent argument.

Just asking a question...

I want something done to solve the problem. Saying that it's the owner's fault doesn't solve the problem of what to do with a dog who has (through whoever's fault) learned the joys of biting and killing.

In this case, the dog was shot, but what would your "something" be, how would you solve the problem?

I think there are two levels to this problem and that is why this discussion seems a little heated.

In specific cases sadly it may be necessary to put down or permaently kennel dogs gone bad. I don't think many would disagree.

However, having been at the end of agressive dogs once or twice I do try and look beyond the immediate situation (thankfully no harm has come...) and think 'why did this happen' and 'how could it be prevented' rather than wanting some kind of immediate 'revenge' against the animal.

Surely, generally/longer term addressing 'whoever' is at fault in a strategic way (though education, common practice, regulation, law etc) has to be the way? I mean - to try and stop dogs 'going bad' in the first place. That duty has to be with/placed upon the breeder/owner/keeper and is probably why they keep being mentioned. If this isn't done - idiot owners can get their pets shot over and over.... where does it end?

 

[casablanca1]

I think there's no particular value in talking about education and legal recourse. That's never a contentious issue in the dog world. What is a contentious issue is the idea that it's more moral to kill some dogs.

 

[showpug]

Although I do agree that humane euthanasia may be the immediate answer for some dogs that have become vicious, I still stop and question the future of the owner. So we have a vicious dog attack and the dog is shot/euthanised. Okay, problem solved??....NOT REALLY. What happens when this owner goes out and buys another dog? Just another situation repeat. So we accomplish what in the major scheme of things?? There will still be horrible owners, vicious dogs and people getting attacked or killed. If there is no reprocussion for bad owners, than this problem will only escalate.

On another note, dogs are not "moral" animals. This is actually IMO what sets them apart from humans. Since morality is not an issue that is present in a dogs mind, then wouldn't it only make sense to blame an attack like this on behavioral instinct? I once again want to know more about the exact way this attack happened. I want to know what the girl was doing...where exactly the dog was...how exactly it happened. When I know TRUE facts, not "media" facts, then that is when I draw my final conclusion on if this was a nature or nurture issue.

 

[bonster]

I think there's no particular value in talking about education and legal recourse

The article was obviously written with the same sentiment - it doesn't mention anything about owner-responsibility, in fact it says that the victims mother didn't blame the dog owning policeman, and does seem to put it that he shot the dog, she (the victim's mother) was happy... and that's that. Maybe not the whole story... but not the most balanced view and hardly educative.

 

[casablanca1]

The article was obviously written with the same sentiment - it doesn't mention anything about owner-responsibility, in fact it says that the victims mother didn't blame the dog owning policeman, and does seem to put it that he shot the dog, she (the victim's mother) was happy... and that's that. Maybe not the whole story... but not the most balanced view and hardly educative.

The reporter was merely reporting on a dog attack without much depth. I was trying to discuss the side of dog aggression that doggy people avoid like the plague. We all love to natter on about training and education and humane treatment, but when that emphasize-the-positive attitude turns as far south as it has in recent years - time after time, I've seen an emotional outpouring of grief and pity for a dog who's attacked someone's child or someone's pet, while the victim of the attack is barely mentioned - it makes me think this is more about making us feel good than about helping dogs. How does it help dogs to save a dog who'll kill other dogs? How does it help dogs to save a dog who'll kill a child? How does it help anyone to keep violent, dangerous dogs alive? We blame the media for bad news stories about certain breeds, we blame the media for not discussing bad owners, we blame bad owners for everything else, but there's a huge share of blame on our heads for protecting bad dogs either in word or deed.

 

[oriondw]

The reporter was merely reporting on a dog attack without much depth. I was trying to discuss the side of dog aggression that doggy people avoid like the plague. We all love to natter on about training and education and humane treatment, but when that emphasize-the-positive attitude turns as far south as it has in recent years - time after time, I've seen an emotional outpouring of grief and pity for a dog who's attacked someone's child or someone's pet, while the victim of the attack is barely mentioned - it makes me think this is more about making us feel good than about helping dogs. How does it help dogs to save a dog who'll kill other dogs? How does it help dogs to save a dog who'll kill a child? How does it help anyone to keep violent, dangerous dogs alive? We blame the media for bad news stories about certain breeds, we blame the media for not discussing bad owners, we blame bad owners for everything else, but there's a huge share of blame on our heads for protecting bad dogs either in word or deed.

Umm. If a small dog attacks a big dog and gets killed, big dog will automatically get blamed. If a child smacks a dog with a stick few times and then gets mauled dog will get put to sleep. Everytime a dog does something that people like you think they are not supposed to do, agression wise, they are labeled vicious and dangerous.

Thats just stupid to blame dogs for others stupid actions.

Its not up to you to decide what people can and cant keep. I guess you support banning all "violent and dangerous" dogs eh? Pits, rotts, labs... poodles. They all can be violent and dangerous

 

[bridey_01]

I agree with orion there. I also should have brought up the point that showpug mentioned, that dogs are not moral animals. If we don't teach them what is right and wrong (in our opinion) then they will naturally form their own rules.
I've worked with alot of "aggressive" dogs that just needed to be shown that what they were doing was wrong. Thank god most of us do "natter" on about training and education. I would hate to think of the implications of not having either of them.

 

[casablanca1]

Umm. If a small dog attacks a big dog and gets killed, big dog will automatically get blamed. If a child smacks a dog with a stick few times and then gets mauled dog will get put to sleep. Everytime a dog does something that people like you think they are not supposed to do, agression wise, they are labeled vicious and dangerous.

That's true only in the most dramatic, highly publicized cases. Which frequently involve a dog who had earlier attacked someone with less drastic results and gotten away with it. Unless the damage is severe - permanent disability or death, the law frequently comes down on the side of property rights, ie, the dog is the owner's property and property rights in our society are pretty firmly defended.

[/QUOTE]Thats just stupid to blame dogs for others stupid actions.
Its not up to you to decide what people can and cant keep. I guess you support banning all "violent and dangerous" dogs eh? Pits, rotts, labs... poodles. They all can be violent and dangerous [/QUOTE]

Oh, it's the reasoned voice of the badass breed advocate. Look, I said nothing about breed bans and nothing about breed at all. My point, which you've chosen to ignore, is that bad dogs, dogs who bite without reason and maul their victims (and if you recognize your dogs in that description, that's not my fault) are to be blamed, held responsible, etc., etc. because dogs are thinking animals whose nobility, intelligence and heart are as known to us as our skin. How can anyone deny the responsibility of dogs to understand our race? A dog who bites is not in ignorance of aggression, he's versed in it. They're not boxes, or computers, requiring programming and living in a state of innocence if they're not trained. They're animals, with natural aggression and a domestication that took centuries, that separated wolf from dog by curbing aggression and instilling inhibition against bites. Dogs who bite aren't
in ignorance of what we expect, they're disregarding what we expect.

 

[Renee750il]

Umm. If a small dog attacks a big dog and gets killed, big dog will automatically get blamed. If a child smacks a dog with a stick few times and then gets mauled dog will get put to sleep. Everytime a dog does something that people like you think they are not supposed to do, agression wise, they are labeled vicious and dangerous.

That is far too true! I can't count how many times I've had to dive in and stop a child who hasn't been taught - or sometimes who just enjoys cruelty and bullying - from tormenting an animal. I take the opportunity to try and teach them at least something about the necessity - and rewards - of having respect for animals. It's not natural for a dog to be aggressive toward humans. Even wolves are not inclined to be aggressive toward humans, prefering to avoid confrontation with us unless driven by extreme hunger or fear. We are all too quick to label any kind of biting or attacking behavior as 'aggressive' when it is, in reality, defensive behavior. True human aggressiveness in a canine is an aberration and the result of irresponsible human tampering.

It's always tragic when a child is hurt or killed in some way; it's even more tragic when it was completely preventable but was facilitated by irresponsible and stupid adults. It's even worse when the child that is hurt by a dog or any other animal isn't the one who has treated the animal abusively, but is paying the price for the actions of others.

 

[bonster]

My point, which you've chosen to ignore, is that bad dogs, dogs who bite without reason and maul their victims (and if you recognize your dogs in that description, that's not my fault) are to be blamed, held responsible, etc., etc.

Its been said a couple of times that sometimes it is necessary to permanently confine or even euthanise dogs gone "really bad". That is a sad fact, and the price they pay. Doesn't that agree with your point?

Above you mention "without reason"

You seem surprised that on a dog-forum the majority of us are upset by incidents of 'dogs going bad' (especially when poorly/partially reported) and want to discuss the causes (what we believe the 'reason' might be: there must be a reason).

 

[casablanca1]

Its been said a couple of times that sometimes it is necessary to permanently confine or even euthanise dogs gone "really bad". That is a sad fact, and the price they pay. Doesn't that agree with your point?).

Yes, it does agree with my point. But it was buried beneath an avalanche of accusations that I was rejecting training and education, so I was responding to that absurdity.

Above you mention "without reason" You seem surprised that on a dog-forum the majority of us are upset by incidents of 'dogs going bad' (especially when poorly/partially reported) and want to discuss the causes (what we believe the 'reason' might be: there must be a reason).

I'm not surprised there's discussion of cause, I'm shocked there's rejection of one cause - the dog. In my experience, there are bad dogs, and I'm not sure what the practical advantage is of pretending that all dog attacks are linked to abuse, are provoked by their victim, or otherwise are about an innocent dog and a violent human. Some dogs are just bad dogs. The closest we get around here to calling that is to say they're badly handled. Which is a closeted way of saying 'bad dog,' since a good dog can slip its leash without massacring a tot or a Chihuahua.

I've seen bad dogs who were products of abuse and neglect and poor training. But I've seen dogs who were doted on and trained and treated well who were as aggressive as alligators and about as dangerous. I understand why the dog world discusses reasons and causes, I just don't understand the wholesale rejection of 'nature' in favor of 'nurture.' It's particularly odd coming from the dog world, considering the pure breeds only exist because of the enthusiastic pursuit of genetics as destiny.

 

[Renee750il]

I don't think the nature vs. nurture argument is even viable. Both are relevant. I've seen dogs whose natures were gentle, loving and trusting who had been horribly abused; they bore the whole ordeal stoicly, never turning, never offering to defend themselves in any way. On the other hand, I've run across dogs who had terrible defensive temperaments from an early stage that were gentled and learned to trust and love through patient and consistent teaching. Nature and nurture most often go hand in hand; sometimes one outweighs the other, and sometimes you run into a nature that no amount of nurture will overcome. It has to be evaluated on an individual basis; generalizations just don't apply with any accuracy.

A dog that is temperamentally a time bomb can also be laid on our doorstep, as some human was responsible for purposely bad or negligent breeding. In one way or another, the responsibility does come back to us and we have no right to try to sidestep our way out of it.

 

[BigDog2191]

Yes, it does agree with my point. But it was buried beneath an avalanche of accusations that I was rejecting training and education, so I was responding to that absurdity.



I'm not surprised there's discussion of cause, I'm shocked there's rejection of one cause - the dog. In my experience, there are bad dogs, and I'm not sure what the practical advantage is of pretending that all dog attacks are linked to abuse, are provoked by their victim, or otherwise are about an innocent dog and a violent human. Some dogs are just bad dogs. The closest we get around here to calling that is to say they're badly handled. Which is a closeted way of saying 'bad dog,' since a good dog can slip its leash without massacring a tot or a Chihuahua.

I've seen bad dogs who were products of abuse and neglect and poor training. But I've seen dogs who were doted on and trained and treated well who were as aggressive as alligators and about as dangerous. I understand why the dog world discusses reasons and causes, I just don't understand the wholesale rejection of 'nature' in favor of 'nurture.' It's particularly odd coming from the dog world, considering the pure breeds only exist because of the enthusiastic pursuit of genetics as destiny.

A serial killer is formed normally by something as a kid--puppy. Usually it's a abuse or being molested--something that sticks with them forever and traumatizes them.

This is why the killer usually targets people that are similar to the person who had hurt them in the past.

Same with a dog. I heard about a woman that would beat her dog every single day--a big German Shepherd. And to this day, the German Shepherd pees himself when he sees a woman.

It is likely someday if the owner has a visitor that is a woman--he will attack it.

You say it's a bad dog but ever heard the saying: bad dogs aren't born, they're made?

 

[showpug]

A serial killer is formed normally by something as a kid--puppy. Usually it's a abuse or being molested--something that sticks with them forever and traumatizes them.

This is why the killer usually targets people that are similar to the person who had hurt them in the past.

Same with a dog. I heard about a woman that would beat her dog every single day--a big German Shepherd. And to this day, the German Shepherd pees himself when he sees a woman.

It is likely someday if the owner has a visitor that is a woman--he will attack it.

You say it's a bad dog but ever heard the saying: bad dogs aren't born, they're made?

On the other hand, you have serial killers that never had a bad childhood, or what about all the people that have horrible things happen to them as children and yet they never grow up to kill. The same could apply to dogs. I agree with Renee in the sense that in these situations we just can't generalize because they are all just so different.

When Ted Bundy was 3 or 4 years old his babysitter fell asleep on the floor. When she awoke Ted had stuck knives in the floor to outline her body. Sound too far fetched to be true? Well, it's not, it actually happened. Now you can't tell me that there isn't a whole lot of NATURE taking place there!

 

[mrose_s]

that was his baby sitter, not his mother, and i doubt the report shed light onexactly how the child was raised, maybe somehting as simple as seeing a knife stabbed or dropped into a board and than wandering and watching Playschool draw outlines around peoples hands wth a texter created a link, truggered by something the babysitter did?

or perhaps those peopel with problems that had a good childhood have mental issues? There are a great many things to be taken into account here

 

[BigDog2191]

On the other hand, you have serial killers that never had a bad childhood, or what about all the people that have horrible things happen to them as children and yet they never grow up to kill. The same could apply to dogs. I agree with Renee in the sense that in these situations we just can't generalize because they are all just so different.

When Ted Bundy was 3 or 4 years old his babysitter fell asleep on the floor. When she awoke Ted had stuck knives in the floor to outline her body. Sound too far fetched to be true? Well, it's not, it actually happened. Now you can't tell me that there isn't a whole lot of NATURE taking place there!

He also saw a naked woman at a very young age. Which drove him to believe that women were just dolls that could be played with or even killed--they weren't human beings to him.

That said, it was a TRAUMATIZING experience.

Can you give me an example of a serial killing without motive?