Dakota hurt another dog... help please ASAP

[RD]

I know, right? Guess I was wrong about this unit being helpful.

i hope the dog has owners nearby and that it's not lost. It didn't act lost, didn't have that bewildered look on its face, but who knows. Hope it's all right, I feel so bad about it. I can only think of how horrified I would be to have my dog get out and come home torn up and bleeding.

 

[Roxy's CD]

It's not your fault though RD.

I seriously doubt Dakota has ever done anything like this before!

And from the sounds of it, this dog kind of instigated it... and Dakota just, well acted.

If he was eating, and some how escaped, we'll just hope that someone finds him and takes him to the vet soon though.

 

[doberkim]

so why dont you go and ask to see if someone owned the dog?
if so, you should at LEAST pay for that dogs vet bills.
and iw ould NOT be letting dakota off leash there.

 

[Fran27]

so why dont you go and ask to see if someone owned the dog?
if so, you should at LEAST pay for that dogs vet bills.
and iw ould NOT be letting dakota off leash there.

No way! The owners are responsible for letting their dog loose IMO. Hopefully it will be a good lesson for them. If the owners had been there, it would have been different.

 

[doberkim]

letting their dog loose?

dakota was loose as well, AND DID NOT COME BACK WHEN CALLED.

neither dog was controlled. dakota "opened a can of whoopass" on a dog that was uncalled for, and could have seriously hurt it. that is wrong, in my book, and responsibility needs to be taken. RD was there, and still couldnt control her dog.

 

[elle]

wasn't dakota loose (off leash) as well?


i'd personally be much more concerned about what this means if it were my dog. you say you tried to call dakota off, but obviously even if he knew what he wanted, he chose to ignore you. this is a BIG PROBLEM.

you said he's never done anything like this before... well, there is a first time for everything. you said he's always good with kids -- you need to consider that there may be a "first time" when he decides that some kid is posing a threat or being a nusiance and decides to "open a can of whoopass" on that kid. it sounds like your dog does not show much bite restraint, so what are you going to do to prevent situations like this from happening in the future?!

i think something you seriously need to consider is SAFETY. as evidenced by what happened here, you dog does NOT have a reliable recall. PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE consider your training before EVER letting your dog off leash again! if your dog does not come when called 100% of the time, no matter what the situation, he should NOT be off leash EVER. this is not only for the safety of those around him (he has already shown what damage he can do!) -- but for his safety as well. There are a million situations he could encounter off leash when it would be life or death for him depending on whether or not he will come when you call him. please take the time to analyze how you have been training, why it has failed, and what you can change in the future.

i hope i don't sound too harsh, but the true severity of this situation seems to have been overlooked by many posters in this thread including the OP. please take the time to consider the full implications of the situation. this is a warning sign with your dog -- and whether or not you choose to heed the warning is up to you. good luck.

 

[LabBreeder]

I was just wondering if this was one of those "off leash" areas or if it was Dakota's back yard? If it was his property then the other dog shouldn't have been there, period. If it was an off leash area and the other dogs owner was nowhere around then it's still partially the other dogs owners fault...but also Dakota's (and owners) fault for him not listening and leaving the other dog alone.

I hope the other dog is o.k. and that Dakota doesn't get into much trouble over his attack. I guess it all depends on the situation.

 

[Fran27]

It was an enclosed area... Dakota was loose but RD was there. That dog's owner was nowhere to be found! That's quite a big difference IMO.

If the dog had rushed under a car, his owners nowhere to be found also, would you say the driver should pay the vet bill too?


Either way, I agree that Dakota probably needs more off leash training... At the same time, if he has never showed any kind of agression to other dog, I think it's quite clear that the other dogs provoked him (by barking and growling) and Dakota just defended himself. So yeah, more offleash training is probably needed, but I don't think it's nowhere as bad as you guys are saying... Or are you saying Dakota should just have ignored a dog that barked and growled at him?

 

[Saje]

Personally I don't think that RD is more than half responsible for what happened. By paying the full cost of the medical bills she would be admitting full responsibilty and it took two dogs and two owners to make this problem.

 

[elegy]

dakota should have come when his owner called him. period. dakota should have stopped the fight when his owner yelled and turned a hose on him. this isn't just dakota got snarfy and belligerent about a dog getting in his face. he threw himself into a full-on fury. that's not cool.

should dakota have been off-leash? well, apparently not, but if he'd never shown signs of this kind of aggression in the past, then it's a lesson that needed to be learned. dogs can catch us by surprise, so i don't really fault rd for having him off-leash, but the bottom line is that her dog was out of her control and harmed somebody else's dog. she needs to take responsibility for that.

 

[doberkim]

It was an enclosed area... Dakota was loose but RD was there. That dog's owner was nowhere to be found! That's quite a big difference IMO.

If the dog had rushed under a car, his owners nowhere to be found also, would you say the driver should pay the vet bill too?

YES! i think if you hit a dog, even if no owner is in site, you are responsible FOR YOUR ACTIONS and you hit the dog - so you pay for the medical treatment.


i didnt know responsibility meant only when someone else is there to witness your irresponsible actions and call you on it.

 

[Saje]

The other dog was out of control too plus the other owner wasn't even there to try and regain control.

 

[Saje]

i didnt know responsibility meant only when someone else is there to witness your irresponsible actions and call you on it.

Who said that?

 

[Squidbert]

YES! i think if you hit a dog, even if no owner is in site, you are responsible FOR YOUR ACTIONS and you hit the dog - so you pay for the medical treatment.

i really don't agree with that.. it was an accident cause because the owner didnt have the dog on a leash and was nowhere around to help prevent it..
The person in the car didnt mean to hit them and the dog shouldn't have been there in the first place..

But that's not the same situation.. sorry RD..

 

[doberkim]

The other dog was out of control too plus the other owner wasn't even there to try and regain control.

so two wrongs make a right? because someone else was acting irresponsibly, it gives you leeway to act irresponsible as well?

 

[Saje]

so two wrongs make a right? because someone else was acting irresponsibly, it gives you leeway to act irresponsible as well?

I never said anything about this was right. I think by paying half she would be acting responsibly. And she is trying to find the dog and help it. Nothing irresponsible about that. It's not like she doesn't care.

 

[RD]

Yup Kim I agree and will cover the dog's vet bills if someone owns it. Even if it is their responsibility for letting their dog get out, I wouldn't feel right just letting it go.

Of course I can't exactly tell whose it is since the dog hasn't been found. I am going to call animal control and tell them to give the owners of the dog my number if it is found and claimed.

This is not my property, but it is private property and Dakota has been hired by the owners as a working dog to control the goose problem. Other dogs are NOT allowed offlead and I am familiar with all of the "regular" dogs here, as is Dakota. He has no problems with any of them, simply ignores them when he's working and plays with them when he's off-duty.

I'm not overlooking what this means. Dakota has always had what I thought was a rock-solid recall but obviously we have more work to do. If anyone has advice on how to proof a recall under intense distraction like another dog attacking the one being called, please do share.

And Elle, while I appreciate your input and understand where you are coming from, I do not feel that you are in any position to comment on what little bite restraint my dog has. Which, to me, is just a politically correct way ot stating that my dog is unstable and dangerous. I cannot excuse his behavior, I can only vouch for his sound temperament and the fact that I would trust this dog with anything from my tiny fragile Papillon to a newborn baby or a rowdy 3 year old. He takes everything in stride and is, as far as I know, bombproof. So for him to react violently to something like that which was not only percieved as a threat to him, but to me and his job, is not a cause for me to run out and buy a muzzle and question how safe my dog is. I guess some of it comes down to trust, and I trust Dakota.

However, I'm not stupid. my trust has limits and I now understand that his recall isn't as good as I thought. He will still be offlead here, but I'm going to have his longline dragging whenever there are people and other dogs around.

 

[elle]

Or are you saying Dakota should just have ignored a dog that barked and growled at him?

No, I'm not trying to say anything about what "should have" happened. Like elegy said, if he has never shown any sign of aggression before, then there was no way to predict that this would have happened... But now that it HAS happened, you need to take it seriously and consider carefully what needs to be changed to prevent it from happening again. The biggest problem to me (besides the callous attitude that other people's dogs are other people's problems) is that Dakota DID NOT come when he was called back. Having a dog with a potential for aggression (even if it is limited to dog aggression) means either keeping your dog on leash 100% of the time no matter where you are (there are, afterall, stray dogs with no owners to prevent them from being in the wrong place at the wrong time) or modifying your training with the knowledge that recall is a problem and working from there in hopes to someday trust the dog off leash again.


As for this dog & it's medical bills... Everyone seems to be assuming that this dog has owners that just let it free and were being irresponsible. This dog showed obvious relunctance to approach humans, how do we know it is "owned"? This dog, for all intents and purposes, may be a stray who happened to wander into the fenced in area. He did, afterall, manage to wander back out...

If this dog was NOT owned by anyone, do you all still feel that the OP has no responsibility for his medical care? She was unable to control her dog and this dog suffered as a result... if he is not owned, he could be off somewhere suffering from maggot-infested bite wounds or dying of sepsis!

Since the dog was aggressive and would not let OP approach him anyway, this is a mute point as the most she could do in the situation was contact animal control and hope for the best.


On the off-topic HBC issue -- If it were me, I would have that dog at the nearest vet, telling them to do whatever they could for it no matter what it would cost me (and no, i'm not rich). If the owner's could be immediately found, I would hope that they would be responsible and want to take over financial responsibility for their dog. If they didn't care, it might be an issue I'd take up with animal control.

And as for dogs running loose -- Everyone seems to be assuming that because a dog is loose, it's owners are irresponsible... But, mistakes happen to the best of us. I've seen more than one person on this board alone who believes that they are a responsible pet owner have their dog "escape" or run away. There are a million ways a dog can get loose. Yes, most of them can be avoided if you are responsible, but some cannot. What if a family member accidently leaves a fence open? Or a workman comes to the house when you're not home and leaves the door open while getting something from his truck?

There's a million possibilities, but I think the big things here are:
1. Dakota has proven he does NOT have a reliable recall. He has also shown that he can be overly aggressive. These are serious issues that are often indicators of future problems. They are not things that should be written off as one time "flukes".
2. Animals cannot care for themselves. Irregardless of who they are owned by, many of us feel a strong sense of responsibilty toward them. Just because someone irresponsible may own them and let them run free, many of us feel that if we have in some unintentional way harmed them then we have a moral responsibility to help them.

 

[RD]

Elle, again, I see your point. I AM taking this seriously. I'm not sure where you got the impression that I wasn't. His recall needs work. This is the first time this has EVER happened and I will do what I can to prevent it from happening again. However, I still firmly believe that he was defending himself and me.
He is a very drivey dog. Once he focuses on something, it takes a lot to get him to give it up. If he was just out for the fight, because he is a vicious and uncontrollable beast, why did he return to me immediately after the other dog retreated? If he is so aggressive, why did he IGNORE the other dog entirely until it threatened him?

If the dog does not have owners and is found, and is SOUND otherwise (meaining it does not have issues that would lead to it being PTS) I would be willing to help cover the bills. I do feel responsible for what happened. It was an accident but I feel responsible nonetheless.

 

[elle]

And Elle, while I appreciate your input and understand where you are coming from, I do not feel that you are in any position to comment on what little bite restraint my dog has. Which, to me, is just a politically correct way ot stating that my dog is unstable and dangerous. I cannot excuse his behavior, I can only vouch for his sound temperament and the fact that I would trust this dog with anything from my tiny fragile Papillon to a newborn baby or a rowdy 3 year old. He takes everything in stride and is, as far as I know, bombproof. So for him to react violently to something like that which was not only percieved as a threat to him, but to me and his job, is not a cause for me to run out and buy a muzzle and question how safe my dog is. I guess some of it comes down to trust, and I trust Dakota.

I'm glad to hear that you are not overlooking what this could mean and I'm glad that you will be re-evaluating your recall. How have you tried proofing the recall thus far?

I'm sorry my post made you feel defensive, that is not how it was intended. By "bite restraint" I was speaking more to the severity of the damage (description of blood everywhere, etc) than to the dog's temperment. I did not mean to imply that Dakota is completely unstable and dangerous.

You were there and I was not. That being said, I'd be cautious to describe him as "bombproof" - Before this situation, would you have expected him to respond as he did? From your first post, it did not seem so.

I guess after living with various dog aggressive and people aggressive dogs, I am hyper vigilant about these things. No matter how much I trust a certain dog, I don't trust the rest of the world! I'm ALWAYS on gaurd when I have dogs out in public. 99.9% of the time things go completely smooth and my constant evaluations of the situations and the dog's response are unnecessary... better safe than sorry is my philosiphy. And no matter how much I trust a dog, that dog is still an animal, and as you saw recently, sometimes instinct takes over and bad things happen.