Pitbutll Mauls 4 Yr Old Boy

[Rivers2k]

generally everyone agrees it's the owner's fault. but the question in the op is, should the dog be put down? why? why not?

I made the comparison to criminals not because I think the dogs are like criminals I am jsut pointing out that people dont take hard lines on things anymore. But sorry I got off topic.

To answer the OP question yes the dog should be put down unless someone is willing to take it that can guarantee it will not be in contact with children (which I think it will be hard to guarantee). I say this not because I think the dog is evil but it is not worth risking the safety of another child thinking the dog might be rehabilitated. I feel bad the dogs life turned out this way but children are so much more precious.

 

[SumoNinja]

and i'm sure statistics show that a dog that has attacked people before has a higher risk of doing it again


but i may be talking out my ass since i don't have a source to back that, lol

 

[Warborg]

and i'm sure statistics show that a dog that has attacked people before has a higher risk of doing it again


but i may be talking out my ass since i don't have a source to back that, lol

The theory is once they taste blood, they will want it again

 

[Crazy mike]

The theory is once they taste blood, they will want it again

By that theory dogs trained in bite work should account for a high percentage of dog bites since they bite people ally he time and are trained to do so. But they don't

Sent from my VS840 4G

 

[rmkblades]

The theory is once they taste blood, they will want it again

Don't buy that...Hunters use dogs to retrieve ducks and small game from the bush or water that have been shot. If they are shot, that means they have wounds with blood. Yet these working dogs bring the bloodied animal back to the hunter. They don't eat the duck or people wouldn't use them for hunting. If the the theory of "once they taste blood, they will want it again" was true, hunting dogs wouldn't make...Well...good hunting dogs. Two more quick examples 1) The Dogo Argentino - bred to take down hogs in the hunt (very bloody), yet come home after a hard days work to become a docile family dog. 2) They sell raw meat dog food at Petco and Petsmart. It is supposed to be better for them since it is not processed and cooked (loss of nutrients, etc.) Point being- Don't you think these corporations would have a team of lawyers advising against selling raw meat if the "taste blood theory" was true. Imagine the headlines "Petco and Petsmart accidentally create a legion of blood thirsty dogs after pooches eat their healthy raw meat diet".

 

[FMA4ME]

Hello; I think your comment may be one of the keys to the issue in question. Some people see their dogs as "family members" with all the emotional attachments that implies. Others of us care about a dog but not to the level of a brother, sister, parent or child. In fact, many of us place any dog at a much lower level than any human being even outside the family. Once you equate a dog with family the view on these maulings seems to take a different tone. I suspect some transference with regard as to how you would feel if your "family member dog" had bitten a child and was to be put down. I will speculate this is why you contend the dog in question should not be put down even after a bad mauling of a child. I can not come to embrace the empathy for a dog over that for a child.

I have had dogs that I cared about and was lucky in that none ever attacked a person. Had that happened, I like to think I would have put the dog down. Once a dog attacks a person, that is a line crossed. I can carve out a few specific exceptions. For example a dangerious intruder into a home attacked by a dog protecting a family member, not a visitor or child picking up a bone. A police or military dog that attacks under the supervision of it's trainer. There might possibly be other very specific cases, but not many of the reported mauling, including the one under discussion, fall into such a category. Dogs are not people and under law do not have the rights of people.

To the issue of pitbulls and rotweillers being somehow targeted and falsley demonized, consider this. Many of us have based our concerns not just on the media reports but on the numbers. As I read thru the studies in links I previously provided; these two breeds appear to make up five percent or less of the total dog population but account for over seventy percent (70%) of fatal maulings. If I recall correctly, over fifty percent (50+%) for pitbulls alone. There must be something to those numbers. Those of us who have to share the world with these dogs are, in my opinion, duly concerned. It is not likely to be only bad owners as it seems there should be similar numbers of bad owners of the other breeds.

Yes! Dogs are not people and do not have the rights of people!
I also think the dog should be put down. It has a violent past, and it's justnot worth the risk to most people. Yea, mabe the right person could make progress with the dog but...

 

[justarn]

Stupid eh? A well trained dog knows a threat from a none threat. Sounds like you like your dog within a few inches from out of control because "its a guard dog". Poor excuse

I assure you my pit knows the difference between you and a child despite child like thinking displayed by both

any dog can snap you gonk, even the best dogs can turn remember that when you leave your pit with your young child you naive little man lol!

 

[SumoNinja]

any dog can snap you gonk, even the best dogs can turn remember that when you leave your pit with your young child you naive little man lol!

lmfao, just ignore that guy Justin, works for me

 

[ballinouttacntrol]

any dog can snap you gonk, even the best dogs can turn remember that when you leave your pit with your young child you naive little man lol!

And ill keep doing it every damn day


Sent from my iPhone using MonsterAquariaNetwork app

 

[skjl47]

Hello; At some point in the story of dogs and people a deal was struck. For lack of a better term, a covenant. The dogs likely have the worst end of the deal as does most everything that people deal with. That covenant essentially is that outside of some very specific conditions a dog is not to bite a human being. Once a dog does break the deal it is subject to be put down or at the very least always locked away from people.

Some animals would not make the deal with people and are never trusted. Lions, alligators, sharks can perhaps be placed in that category. A while back in Ohio a fellow let his collection of such animals out and then committed suicide. the authorties shot them dead, no questions asked. We all understand that no such covenant exists between people and these animals. I know that a few people have tried to have such animals around much like we have dogs. It has on occasion worked out, I am thinking of Bart the grizzley bear. On many ocasions the animal has turned on the person, I am thinking of Zigfreed & Roy and the white tiger. Animals that have not made the covenant with us are kept in zoos or secure enclosures and not given the relative freedom to mingle the way dogs are.

I fear that those who want to equate dogs with people will, if successful, place an even greater divide between themselves and those of us who still see dogs as dogs. I am already reluctant to have another dog due the social pressures from the animal rights groups and the legal liabilities. Please bear with an example about another species. Here in Tennessee recently several people have been arrested for the way they kept their horses. The problem likely has something to do with the down turn in the economy and a lack of money. People have been jailed, fined and had their animals seized. I guess they should have just put the animals down but wonder if that also would have caused them trouble.

As you may have guessed, I am on the side that says the dog should be put down. Not because of the "tasted blood" theory but because the covenant can only be broken once out side of very specific conditions. Essentially there is no acceptable reason for a dog to attack/bite/maul a child.