Rottweiler Mauls Baby to Death

[ToscasMom]

At least this article today has a veterinarian quote about Rottweilers being no more vicious than any other dog, depending on how they are raised. The writer of this piece was at least fair to the breed. The thing is, when people are killed by any dog, we have to expect it to appear in the newspaper. We can't blame the press that a four month old baby was killed. Reporting this kind of thing is expected just as if someone shot a member of the family and killed him. But this article at least gives a vet a chance to say something about the breed, which is geared toward avoiding hysteria.

I think when the press reports that a "Pit Bull" killed someone, the public ought to be able to see the dog's pic if possible. Then if it isn't what the press is purporting it to be somebody can come forward and say so. As it is today, people just take somebody's word for it. This might be a way to educate the public that everything that looks bully isn't necessarily what others are saying it is. The way it is reported these days, anything with a teeth can be perceived as a pit bull now, and pit bull is becoming some kind of generic term for a dog with a good sized jaw.

Edit, I also think that somebody should do what this article did and ask a vet about the breed involved so people understand, for example, that a rottie or a pit bull or any other dog that does this is not a vicious breed as a whole, but any dog can be vicious if raised incorrectly.

 

[ToscasMom]

"After the attack, the dog's owner told police Chopper had been aggressive with children on at least one other occasion. Sundman said Alexis Cox was only a casual acquaintance of the dog's owner."

You idiot. You should never be allowed to spawn.

 

[LuvinBullies]

You idiot. You should never be allowed to spawn.

Ain't that the truth. I have no doubt in my mind my 1 month old is completely safe around my two dogs (Great Dane and APBT). But do I leave them alone with her even for a minute? NO! NO! NO! Not even for a second. They know she's here, they've sniffed and stared in wonder at her and tried to sneak a lick or two, they are getting acquainted but they will not be left alone together.

 

[Tazwell]

Actually it says they don't know the breeds of dogs involved, though someone mentioned "pit bulls". Are there roving packs of dogs in Detroit? I have never seen anything like that here.

Oh god yes. There are areas of Detroit with packs of "Wild Dogs" that run around, and occasionally they do attack people, according to the news. My Dad commutes through one such area to get to work. He sees them a lot. Actually, I guess they're not even composed of Pit bulls, Which DO compose most of the stray population here.

But that pack involved in the attack with 2 people killed just belonged to somebody stupid. Come to think of it, they don't say much about the owner of that pack of 10.

 

[dogoviz]

Hmmm most likely trained by Kohler or Richling if trained at all . Most likely abused and neglected. Sad fact for many a beautiful dog. I know that this is happening all over but again stupid ignorant owners and poor child that has to be killed because some ass can not teach a dog to be good and has one just for show and tough appearance so darn sad.

Sorry, this may be off topic but since this post references this I feel it justified to respond. I am not a supporter or a fan of either of these gentlemen, nor do I detest them. I have not posted much on this forum being more of a lurker than a poster but I think your post is highly irresponsible. I am familiar with Kohler and Richling and think it highly unlikely that this dog was trained with any method let alone theirs. Just because you may detest a trainer and those trainers’ methods is not reason to suggest that a dog that has killed a human did so because of those methods. Had someone skilled in these methods trained this dog it is highly unlikely that this attack would have ever occurred.

Those of you, who are in the positive only camp, should take a lesson from people such as Suzanne Clothier who seems to be able to get her message out without bashing others. The very method and manner in which you bash others negates the very method you are trying to preach.

I use positive training, I do not disagree with positive training but I do get sick of the method in which this gospel is preached. Most of you probably have little if any personal experience with Kohler and what you do have is most likely because you read his books and took a small portion and made that your mantra.

To be honest many of you remind me of the movie "Independence Day" where the "people" stood upon the top of the skyscrapers singing and dancing while the world and themselves were burnt to ashes. Narrow minded and unwilling to see anything else but their own ways as the correct ones. You throw the baby out along with the bath water and refuse to even harbor the thought that not everyone who utilizes Kohler methods (probably the majority) is an evil two headed dog hater who gets their kicks hanging and beating dogs.

Regardless of what you may think of the methods used their dogs are competitive and successful and controlled. Stooping to blame them for infants being attacked and killed just shows everyone how obsessed you are and takes away the value from the message you are trying to get out.

Fortunately I do not take my methods because they are popular but do so because they work for me and for my dogs. If I were inclined to be swayed by forum posts I would have long since found a club and pummeled my dogs silly in frustration and would not have learned a thing about positive training.

 

[LuvinBullies]

Sorry, this may be off topic but since this post references this I feel it justified to respond. I am not a supporter or a fan of either of these gentlemen, nor do I detest them. I have not posted much on this forum being more of a lurker than a poster but I think your post is highly irresponsible. I am familiar with Kohler and Richling and think it highly unlikely that this dog was trained with any method let alone theirs. Just because you may detest a trainer and those trainers’ methods is not reason to suggest that a dog that has killed a human did so because of those methods. Had someone skilled in these methods trained this dog it is highly unlikely that this attack would have ever occurred.

Those of you, who are in the positive only camp, should take a lesson from people such as Suzanne Clothier who seems to be able to get her message out without bashing others. The very method and manner in which you bash others negates the very method you are trying to preach.

I use positive training, I do not disagree with positive training but I do get sick of the method in which this gospel is preached. Most of you probably have little if any personal experience with Kohler and what you do have is most likely because you read his books and took a small portion and made that your mantra.

To be honest many of you remind me of the movie "Independence Day" where the "people" stood upon the top of the skyscrapers singing and dancing while the world and themselves were burnt to ashes. Narrow minded and unwilling to see anything else but their own ways as the correct ones. You throw the baby out along with the bath water and refuse to even harbor the thought that not everyone who utilizes Kohler methods (probably the majority) is an evil two headed dog hater who gets their kicks hanging and beating dogs.

Regardless of what you may think of the methods used their dogs are competitive and successful and controlled. Stooping to blame them for infants being attacked and killed just shows everyone how obsessed you are and takes away the value from the message you are trying to get out.

Fortunately I do not take my methods because they are popular but do so because they work for me and for my dogs. If I were inclined to be swayed by forum posts I would have long since found a club and pummeled my dogs silly in frustration and would not have learned a thing about positive training.

You make valid points here, albeit sounding a bit snotty. Your points would have probably met their mark had you not gone on the "Independence Day" tangent. Though the delivery left a lot to be desired, I hope no one takes your post personally- we all can get heated or passionate about something and be quick to make a post before we realize we may have implicated someone or something who didn't deserve it. Controlled training methods can be a wonderful thing...a debate about it though belongs in a separate thread and no one person(s) should be implicated in such a horrible tragedy unjustly.
It's kinda like the "Pit Bull" attack stories when it turns out the dog in question was really a stray mutt- but the damage was already done with the first headline which implicated "Pit Bull".
My personal opinion with the dog in question is that no training was involved and the kid probably got the dog from a friend or the pound (or "rescue"). I've found in my own rescue efforts a growing problem with the fact that some rescuers' desire to "save just one" overshadows proper distribution of high-octane dogs. A showboat kid with no sense shouldn't have a Rottweiler anyway, and even if it means facing euthanasia instead of getting a forever home, there is a certain caliber of dog (APBT, Rottweiler, GSD, Doberman, Weimeraner...the list goes on) which absolutely positively MUST be placed in homes with dog savvy folks. If no such home can be found, then an unfortunate truth must be faced. I wish we could save them all, God in heaven knows I do. But had this dog in question been in the right hands, that baby would still be here with us. This was no freak accident, this was gross negligence on the part of the handler and whoever allowed the dog to be placed into the care of the handler- whether it was the boy's parents or anyone else.

 

[klaker]

I am very confused by some of the comments on this thread. Is the problem that the breed identified was not accurate?

Or, do you think that it is more honest if only positive articles be written that mention breeds, and that any negative articles should not mention breeds even if they are accurate?

As an owner of a bully breed are you saying that it is better if the world is ignorant that these large strong dogs who were originally bred to fight can ever be dangerous?

Bully type dogs are more popular now than ever in the history of this country. Many of those dogs are poorly bred and poorly trained. These dogs DO pose a danger. I think being honest and accurate is the best policy to educate the public and work out solutions that let conscientious owners of well bred dogs keep their pets, but also protect the public.

I am sure you are not arguing that keeping the public ignorant of a real problem is the best solution.

I think that you are missing the whole point of the argument and how personal it becomes for a bully breed owner when every time you log on someone has posted another article highlighting our breed of dog. Even when another article comes out saying that the breed was misidentified, it is still too late. In this case, the pit bull demon then became the American Bulldog demon.

My problem with all of these articles is that in most cases with regard to dog attacks the real issue is a stupid owner did some idiotic thing which resulted in an attack. I can't remember any article in which a truely responsible owners dog attacked someone. In reality, these attacks are caused by people owning dogs who have no real idea on how to raise them.

Then to top it off, every time someone reads an article about dog attacks that has anything to do with a bully breed dog, it ends up in every forum on the internet. I myself have even been responsible for posting a story about a dog attack in my area. Only after reading some of the responses did I realize what damage I myself was causing by spreading the story.

When you make a statement like this, what are we supposed to think?

"As an owner of a bully breed are you saying that it is better if the world is ignorant that these large strong dogs who were originally bred to fight can ever be dangerous?"

That statement alone singles out the bully breeds when any dog is capable of being dangerous.

 

[Dizzy]

ANY breed is capable of being aggressive.

I'm willing to bet that BULLY breeds are gonna do more damage when they are as oppose to foo foo tinkerbell the chi.

So yes - people NEED to be informed and understand what they own.

Or are you happy for any numpty to own one and not know how to handle it?!

 

[Lilavati]

ANY breed is capable of being aggressive.

I'm willing to bet that BULLY breeds are gonna do more damage when they are as oppose to foo foo tinkerbell the chi.

So yes - people NEED to be informed and understand what they own.

Or are you happy for any numpty to own one and not know how to handle it?!

I'm not happy for any idiot to own ANY kind of dog. And any large breed can inflict a hell of a lot more damage than any small breed. I suspect a really angry St. Bernard or Irish Wolfhound can do just as much, if not more harm than one of the bullies. However, fortunately for those breeds, they don't have the sort of tough guy image that makes immature yahoos run out and get one.

 

[Dizzy]

Exactly - a large breed can inflict damage.

So people need to know the consequences.

More people own more well known breeds, so they are the ones that need the most work doing to say - THIS IS WHAT THEY CAN DO.

It's common sense.

It's not personal.

People aren't gobsmacked when a collie naturally herds, or a lab naturally retrieves...

"it's what he was born to do" the happy owner gushes

Why be gobsmacked that a defensive or fighting breed can be defensive or fight?

Noone is knocking rotties by saying they can be dangerous, anymore than they are knocking collies by saying they can herd.

MORE people should be aware of what they own in a dog.

Then perhaps - there wouldn't be the issues there are now.

 

[Whisper]

Just as a side comment, it's iresponsible breeding and ownership that makes "fighting breeds" aggressive toward people. . .that's not the norm whatsoever, as even in the days where fighting began, a human aggressive dog is useless to them. They were to be docile and never to lash out at people even when in full fighting mode. It's not the norm for human aggression in "pit bulls" and never should be.

 

[shadowfacedanes]

People aren't gobsmacked when a collie naturally herds, or a lab naturally retrieves...

"it's what he was born to do" the happy owner gushes

Why be gobsmacked that a defensive or fighting breed can be defensive or fight?

.

Because collies don't get euthanized for herding.

 

[Dizzy]

Just as a side comment, it's iresponsible breeding and ownership that makes "fighting breeds" aggressive toward people. . .that's not the norm whatsoever, as even in the days where fighting began, a human aggressive dog is useless to them. They were to be docile and never to lash out at people even when in full fighting mode. It's not the norm for human aggression in "pit bulls" and never should be.

An aggressive dog is an aggressive dog to a dog fighter.

I doubt they keep their fighting dogs with their kids.... And I doubt they kiss and cuddle them at night - so what's the difference to them whether it likes people or not... They weren't bred as pets.

Guard breeds - then yes - I can see why that arguement holds.

But fighting dogs?

 

[Dizzy]

Because collies don't get euthanized for herding.

I think you're missing the point.

They are displaying inherant bred behaviour.

Why do we think OTHER breeds don't do that?

 

[Dizzy]

I am pretty sure you're all thinking "she's having a go at dogs that aren't even aggressive".

Yes ALL breeds have the potential to be aggressive.

All fish have potential to bite - but I wouldn't want to own a shark.

See my point???

Only RESPONSIBLE people need to own sharks.... They need to know that IF a shark bites - it'll hurt more than a goldfish.

Can you even SEE any logic in making people aware of the damage a dog can do in the wrong hands?

And there's no point saying - yes emphasis on wrong hands....

You're not going to stop numptys owning dogs by telling everyone their not aggressive.....

You're going to stop aggression by making people KNOW WHAT THEY OWN.

 

[shadowfacedanes]

Fighting dogs were not bred to be aggressive to humans. In fact, is was IMPERATIVE that they were not.

 

[Dizzy]

Perhaps if we keep telling people - dogs aren't aggressive - people MAKE them aggressive, people will continue to think

"well DUH, my dogs not aggressive"

have NO clue about dogs, so WHOOPS - baby gets face chewed off.

If we say... well actually - dogs can be aggressive... and ****, big, strong dogs can do ALOT of damage...

Then people will pay more attention.

 

[Lilavati]

Fighting dogs were not bred to be aggressive to humans. In fact, is was IMPERATIVE that they were not.

I think the source of the problem here is that it is true the fighting breeds were not bred to be aggressive to humans. They were bred to be aggressive to other dogs, to have a strong prey drive, and to be very, very tenacious creatures. Now, they're breeding was softened, in many cases, when dog fighting was banned, and the fighting breeds became pets. Thus the innocuous English Bulldog.

However, unfortunately, some lines of fighting dogs are once again being bred for aggression, and the people they are being bred by, though they might prefer not to lose a hand, are really perfectly happy to bred the most vicious dogs possible . . . to everything . . .May its part of their 'studly', 'bad boy' image. Many would be delighted for their dog to attack and kill, say, a police officer. Combine that with the old dog and prey aggression, keeping in mind that children are often seen as low ranking pack members and/or small animals, and you can see how it happens.

The reason people keep insisting that the bullies aren't naturally inclined to attack people is that most of them aren't. They may be somewhat dog and prey aggressive, more so than most dogs, but no more so than many other breeds. They aren't very human aggressive, because it was bred out and has never been bred in. Unfortunately, there are enough dogs in the gene pool from modern fighting lines, that even the unsuspecting might end up with one. The other reason people insist is when you say these dogs have a tendancy to attack, you are not notifying the dog owners, who probably at least know of the reputation of them, and if they are certain kind of dog owner sure as he!! know their dog as a tendancy to attack. You're just feeding the BSL people, who assume that all bullies are bred solely for aggession and kept by criminals.

 

[LuvinBullies]

I think the source of the problem here is that it is true the fighting breeds were not bred to be aggressive to humans. They were bred to be aggressive to other dogs, to have a strong prey drive, and to be very, very tenacious creatures. Now, they're breeding was softened, in many cases, when dog fighting was banned, and the fighting breeds became pets. Thus the innocuous English Bulldog.

However, unfortunately, some lines of fighting dogs are once again being bred for aggression, and the people they are being bred by, though they might prefer not to lose a hand, are really perfectly happy to bred the most vicious dogs possible . . . to everything . . .May its part of their 'studly', 'bad boy' image. Many would be delighted for their dog to attack and kill, say, a police officer. Combine that with the old dog and prey aggression, keeping in mind that children are often seen as low ranking pack members and/or small animals, and you can see how it happens.

The reason people keep insisting that the bullies aren't naturally inclined to attack people is that most of them aren't. They may be somewhat dog and prey aggressive, more so than most dogs, but no more so than many other breeds. They aren't very human aggressive, because it was bred out and has never been bred in. Unfortunately, there are enough dogs in the gene pool from modern fighting lines, that even the unsuspecting might end up with one. The other reason people insist is when you say these dogs have a tendancy to attack, you are not notifying the dog owners, who probably at least know of the reputation of them, and if they are certain kind of dog owner sure as he!! know their dog as a tendancy to attack. You're just feeding the BSL people, who assume that all bullies are bred solely for aggession and kept by criminals.

This is a spot-on post.

 

[Tazwell]

I think that even with dogs that weren't bred and raised to fight or guard, or attack people, certain breeds are more likely to become aggressive-- or rather, just Problematic.

If you put a Pit Bull or a Neapolitan Mastiff with a person who's only ever owned cats, or let's say... a Beagle, I'd say that there are potential problems there. You can put a Beagle or a Golden with just about anybody, and they'll turn out okay. A little rough during the teenage years, but we've all had our first or Childhood dogs. We know how it is.

However, if you put a high-energy, working, or driven dog like a Pit Bull, Doberman, or even a Border Collie, I'm sure problems will arise. Those people may just put those problems aside and ignore them, and they'll fester. Put the dog away in the backroom, then when it gets out, it goes nuts and hurts somebody in the commotion. Or since some need more socialization than others, and they don't receive it, then they turn "Dangerous." People want these High-maintenance breeds because they're Cool.

I think that breeds like that really do need more experienced owners, and that's why alot of them are like they are. That's what I've seen, and I think that's why we see more aggressive Rotties and Am Bulldogs in Shelters and on Death row than Beagles and Golden Retrievers.

And the other big thing is size, for sure. I'm sure there's a million more bites by small dogs than big dogs, but they sure do inflict less damage. But that's not the point. Pit Bulls are smaller than Saint Bernards, yet we see more "Pit Bull" bites than Saint Bernard Bites.