The problem is, while humans can support themselves and live alone and (potentially) rehabilitate themselves, dogs can't. They require owners who will care for them, train them and take all responsibility for their actions. And while so many dogs are being killed only because they're ownerless - their original owners died, they were hard to housebreak, they barked a lot, their owner moved, the landlord threw them out, their owner lost his job, the kids are allergic, etc., etc. - I have no problem with putting a dog to sleep because he bit and is as a result ownerless. Retraining a dog who's learned the effectivness of biting is hard, and the dog retains that knowledge all his life, making the responsibility of ownership that much greater. It's different if the dog's owner is a decent person willing to take on the task and keep the dog safely controlled around others. But if the dog is ownerless, it's both impractical and unfair to give him the same shot at a new home as a dog whose only behavioral problem involves housebreaking.
Re: the possibility that the dog was provoked - the dog was a grown dog who knew he was bigger and stronger than the baby, and who had the option of leaving the baby alone if it was hectoring him. I might buy the idea of a provoked attack in some cases - a tied dog tormented by 10-year-old boys, for example. But it's odd for a grown dog to attack a baby in his own family, it goes against the instinct to pull your punches that keeps puppies safe from adult dogs. Maybe there is something to the story we're not hearing (the mother certainly sounds like a winner), but I think it's ominous that whatever was going on in that house, the dog attacked the weakest creature available.
Re: the possibility that the dog was provoked - the dog was a grown dog who knew he was bigger and stronger than the baby, and who had the option of leaving the baby alone if it was hectoring him. I might buy the idea of a provoked attack in some cases - a tied dog tormented by 10-year-old boys, for example. But it's odd for a grown dog to attack a baby in his own family, it goes against the instinct to pull your punches that keeps puppies safe from adult dogs. Maybe there is something to the story we're not hearing (the mother certainly sounds like a winner), but I think it's ominous that whatever was going on in that house, the dog attacked the weakest creature available.
It was very unprofessional to make this comment during the conversation. She should be reprimmanded, but not fired. How can you have a dog and not know what breed it is? Not a very close dog and human relationship. How could a group of people in the same room with a child and dog, let this happen? They are STUPID people!!!!!!!
just fyi dogs are made to survive on their own, if they were made to live in houses or in kennels and be fed by humans then there would be no dogs on this earth today, one example... a wolf or coyote perhaps... i dont see any humans running out into the woods and pouring a bag dog food out there for them. dogs were originally wild, then humans came along and domesticated them.
I guess that would depend on the breed. My pitbull would not make it but someone's anatolian shepherd probably wouldn't have too much difficulty.
I believe there's was a study that concluded dogs will become feral within 16 weeks of being without human contact. So 15000 yrs of domestication gone in 4 months. (I'm not sure on the 16 weeks, it may be shorter).
I believe there's was a study that concluded dogs will become feral within 16 weeks of being without human contact. So 15000 yrs of domestication gone in 4 months. (I'm not sure on the 16 weeks, it may be shorter).
I don't believe you're correct about that last bit; domesticated animals are descended from wild animals, but they've basically changed too much to be considered the same creatures that once lived free. Feral dogs may survive, but they're a sad sight. Anyway, my original point was that dogs can't live in human society without owners. It takes human ownership to control dogs, which are all potentially damaging predators, in such a way that they can live harmoniously within communities of people who don't like dogs, small children who look like prey, little boys who like to pull tails, cats who are beloved by others but look like food, etc.
I think sometimes our emotions just get the best of us. I am a total dog lover, but wouldn't get a pit bull to be around my children. I know this is highly controversial, I also know that pits can be the sweetest dogs in the world, (they have the cutest faces!!) however, they seem to turn without warning. I don't think the breed as a whole should be condemned, I do think people should be EXTRA cautious with this breed, especially around children. You're right, if a lab attacked he wouldn't have made his comment, however pit attacks have been all over the news and brought to the forefront more than any other breed, so it can appear to people to be an unwise decision to allow your children to play with them even if they have always been safe. I'm not saying the media is right in how they have portrayed pits, but if pits weren't attacking (even though I know it is only an extrememly small percentage of them), then the media wouldn't have a chance to distort their reputation. Unfortunately, because a small number of irresponsible breeders - breeding for more aggressive tendencies, and stupid owners wanting this for fighting, macho image, or protection - pits have gotten a bum rap and the breed as a whole is paying the price. What the solution is - no clue. Banning the breed isn't the answer. However, when looking at a dog for the family, I sure do take into consideration what they were bred for and used for in order to make the best fit into a family, especially if small children will be involved - all dogs can bite - lest we forget, they are all animals with animal instincts. Alright, I'll get off my soapbox now.
Hey Amstaffer thanks! I've never won anything of that magnitude before 
.
Busymomof6, no dog should be left with a child unsupervised (I know you know this). These so-called "attacks out of nowhere" seem to happen with all breeds but of course the pit bull's attack is often going to be worse (they're powerful). You are of course safer with a smaller dog because they don't do as much damage. As for having a large dog breed in the house with your growing family, I'd have to say that you are less apt to have an accident with a properly raised pit bull than almost any other dog. I honestly believe it's in the hands of the individual dog owner.
.Busymomof6, no dog should be left with a child unsupervised (I know you know this). These so-called "attacks out of nowhere" seem to happen with all breeds but of course the pit bull's attack is often going to be worse (they're powerful). You are of course safer with a smaller dog because they don't do as much damage. As for having a large dog breed in the house with your growing family, I'd have to say that you are less apt to have an accident with a properly raised pit bull than almost any other dog. I honestly believe it's in the hands of the individual dog owner.
This is a myth supported by Culture of fear media, Breed misidentification, and Stats likes and Skewing.
For most of the 20 century and before Pit Bulls were famous being wonderful with children.
Dogs in general can react in ways that we think of "Out of Nowhere" because we are ignorant to Dog behavior and thought patterns.
There is not a breed on earth that has not attacked a child and I would venture to say that the Pit Bull is not even in the top twenty for attacks on Children. In England the Staffy Bull Terrier is actually called the "Nanny Dog".
For most of the 20 century and before Pit Bulls were famous being wonderful with children.
Dogs in general can react in ways that we think of "Out of Nowhere" because we are ignorant to Dog behavior and thought patterns.
There is not a breed on earth that has not attacked a child and I would venture to say that the Pit Bull is not even in the top twenty for attacks on Children. In England the Staffy Bull Terrier is actually called the "Nanny Dog".
I totally agree that good behavior is in the hand of the owner. More people need to formally train their animal. Not just make it so they can tolerate them in their home. Formal training gives you a chance to bond with your dog and set up the heirarchy necessary for pack mentality. I have always had large breeds, but never a pit bull - even though I think they're one of the most attractive looking dogs, in my opinion. My family always went the retriever/herding dogs. We have never had a problem even with growling. I love large dogs especially pits and Rotties, but because of the pits natural instinct to attack (as described in my breed book), and their breeding to fight. I would have a hard time having them in a family situation. Children and animals should never be allowed to play unsupervised, but if they are living in the same house, there will be situations where the dog and child may be together in the same room for a short period of time i.e dog sleeping in family room and mom gets up to go to the bathroom/answer the phone etc.. and child enters room while mom is gone. I'm not talking about baby, but children over the age of 5 do wander the house more unsupervised than smaller children, and if you have multiple children, then situations are more likely to happen - you need to have a dog you have some relative trust that their instinct is not to attack. That's why I said you need to look at the breeds function - what were they bred for, before deciding on a family pet. Owners are ultimately responsible for their dog's behavior, but let's face it how many people raise their children responsibly, let alone their family pets.