Cat saves boy from being mauled by dog

  • We are currently upgrading MFK. thanks! -neo
I figured haha Thank you though I like to get myself into interesting situations lol life's too boring to not. Random but it was fun, raised a mast on a 50 foot catamaran today haha

I'd get armor for my cat if it ever did that, that's a thing really haha so if it happens again it'll just beast it. That is a pretty big cat though, or just really fluffy, kinda looks like a Maine coons mix.

Sent from my XT1080 using MonsterAquariaNetwork App

Cats will fluff themselves up when they are all worked up. But I agree that's a decent sized cat


Sent from my iPod touch using MonsterAquariaNetwork app
 
I was at a shelter a few weeks ago and I saw some of the biggest mousers that I've ever seen...Maine Coons are nice.
 
Well of course the dog was vicious as it would almost have to be in order for it to run down and attack a small child.The dog acted on its own and will most likely pay dearly for doing so...and so will the owner.I haven't seen any post made to the effect of someone defending the dog but you seem to want someone to do so as you keep mentioning it.You've even predicted it in your post but no one has defended the dog.


Hello; Yes, a prediction based on previous forum threads about dog maulings. In a previous thread concerning a fatal child mauling some were quite vocal that the dog should live. In a thread over a year ago a forum member said they hoped a dog on my bicycling route did get me when I mentioned carrrying protection when I ride. I still expect this thread to contain posts that center about concern for the dog. Some folks just cannot stand the idea of a dog being put down.

By my count there have been at least two posters laying the responsibility off onto the dogs owner. One put 100% on the owner in all regards, legal and otherwise.

If I recall correctly, there was a coment to the effect that it is a shame the dog will have to pay because it has an irresponsible owner. I take that as defending the dog in that the dog would'nt have to be put down if the owner had done his/her duty. If the dog had been locked securely at it's home the incident could not have happened, but that does not change the fact the dog is vicious and acted on it's own.

My take is that there are many thousands, if not millions, of dogs running loose and not kept secure. The vast majority of those dogs do not bite/maul people regardless of having a good owner or an irresponsible owner. Those dogs that do choose to bite and/or maul do not do so based on the type of owner, but for their own reasons. I am on the side of having these vicious dogs put down,while others do not want the dogs killed and find a number of justifications. Irresponsible owners being perhaps the more common justification.
 
Once, my sister's cat, (at the time she was a borderline cat lady) must've thought I was going to attack my sister. My sister was sitting on our porch, I went to run into the house which meant running past her. and when I got to the steps, out of nowhere the cat runs between us fully fluffed and and ready to fight! I stopped right in my tracks.
 
[/B]

Hello; Yes, a prediction based on previous forum threads about dog maulings. In a previous thread concerning a fatal child mauling some were quite vocal that the dog should live. In a thread over a year ago a forum member said they hoped a dog on my bicycling route did get me when I mentioned carrrying protection when I ride. I still expect this thread to contain posts that center about concern for the dog. Some folks just cannot stand the idea of a dog being put down.

By my count there have been at least two posters laying the responsibility off onto the dogs owner. One put 100% on the owner in all regards, legal and otherwise.

If I recall correctly, there was a coment to the effect that it is a shame the dog will have to pay because it has an irresponsible owner. I take that as defending the dog in that the dog would'nt have to be put down if the owner had done his/her duty. If the dog had been locked securely at it's home the incident could not have happened, but that does not change the fact the dog is vicious and acted on it's own.

My take is that there are many thousands, if not millions, of dogs running loose and not kept secure. The vast majority of those dogs do not bite/maul people regardless of having a good owner or an irresponsible owner. Those dogs that do choose to bite and/or maul do not do so based on the type of owner, but for their own reasons. I am on the side of having these vicious dogs put down,while others do not want the dogs killed and find a number of justifications. Irresponsible owners being perhaps the more common justification.

The difference is the temperament of the dogs in question. Yes the dog acted on its own no one is denying that. But the reason I say the fault is the owners is they either where unaware or simply didn't care to fully understand their dog. This dog lacked a stable temperament and possibly socialization around kids. I agree with you that vicious dogs should be put down but where we differ is I've studied varying temperaments, I've seen the examples of temperaments that aren't safe due to bad breeding and lack of socialization, training and simple management on the owners part. I hold people accountable because dogs are animals. To hold a animal to the same standards in regards to decision making is ludicrous. To do so shows a lack of understanding canine behavior and the forces driving it.

Sent from my VS840 4G
 
In didn't notice the mother in the vid. Not sure why you think its scary that I have a kid. When my kids are outside any where near the street I am literally right next to them, things happen in a blink of an eye with kids not sure if you have any (probably not judging by how you took my comment )

Sent from my SPH-L710 using MonsterAquariaNetwork App

So you watched the video, and somehow missed the mom slightly out of frame watering plants. The second the attack starts she drops her hose (as you can tell but the water spraying into frame)and comes flying into the frame. Now ask yourself, if a child has his mother nearby....is he "alone." You stated you would never leave your child alone outside, which is irrelevant because neither did this parent. I, as a parent, have the ability to multitask. I myself would feel perfectly comfortable letting my son ride his bike in a similar fashion to the way the victim was if i was nearby watching. Once you educate your children on the dangers of the street and make them aware, as long as they are obedient then I don't find it necessary to hover over them. But different strokes I guess.

P.s. krich took it for the joke it was, just saying...
 
Once, my sister's cat, (at the time she was a borderline cat lady) must've thought I was going to attack my sister. My sister was sitting on our porch, I went to run into the house which meant running past her. and when I got to the steps, out of nowhere the cat runs between us fully fluffed and and ready to fight! I stopped right in my tracks.

Not sure why but the mental image that painted is hilarious
 
Not sure why but the mental image that painted is hilarious

lol, really surprising as she is a small female cat, but the look in her eyes and posture said
"try something, I dare ya!!" :D
So it was surprising then funny :)
 
[/B]

Hello; Yes, a prediction based on previous forum threads about dog maulings. In a previous thread concerning a fatal child mauling some were quite vocal that the dog should live. In a thread over a year ago a forum member said they hoped a dog on my bicycling route did get me when I mentioned carrrying protection when I ride. I still expect this thread to contain posts that center about concern for the dog. Some folks just cannot stand the idea of a dog being put down.

By my count there have been at least two posters laying the responsibility off onto the dogs owner. One put 100% on the owner in all regards, legal and otherwise.

If I recall correctly, there was a coment to the effect that it is a shame the dog will have to pay because it has an irresponsible owner. I take that as defending the dog in that the dog would'nt have to be put down if the owner had done his/her duty. I am on the side of having these vicious dogs put down,while others do not want the dogs killed and find a number of justifications. Irresponsible owners being perhaps the more common justification.
It is a shame that the kid got bit and the dog has to pay for it with his life.That is not defending the dog and ultimately it is all the owners fault...Do the parents sue Fido?..I don't understand why you don't see that but bringing up all this other stuff has nothing to do with this discussion...I'm done with the redundancy..moving on.
 
[/B]

Hello; Yes, a prediction based on previous forum threads about dog maulings. In a previous thread concerning a fatal child mauling some were quite vocal that the dog should live. In a thread over a year ago a forum member said they hoped a dog on my bicycling route did get me when I mentioned carrrying protection when I ride. I still expect this thread to contain posts that center about concern for the dog. Some folks just cannot stand the idea of a dog being put down.

By my count there have been at least two posters laying the responsibility off onto the dogs owner. One put 100% on the owner in all regards, legal and otherwise.

If I recall correctly, there was a coment to the effect that it is a shame the dog will have to pay because it has an irresponsible owner. I take that as defending the dog in that the dog would'nt have to be put down if the owner had done his/her duty. If the dog had been locked securely at it's home the incident could not have happened, but that does not change the fact the dog is vicious and acted on it's own.

My take is that there are many thousands, if not millions, of dogs running loose and not kept secure. The vast majority of those dogs do not bite/maul people regardless of having a good owner or an irresponsible owner. Those dogs that do choose to bite and/or maul do not do so based on the type of owner, but for their own reasons. I am on the side of having these vicious dogs put down,while others do not want the dogs killed and find a number of justifications. Irresponsible owners being perhaps the more common justification.

I am the one that said it's a damn shame that a dog has to be put down due to a bad, lazy, stupid owner. And yes, I still feel bad for the dog. That in no way means I think the dog shouldn't be put down. Quite the opposite. Due to the lack of training, there is practically zero chance of this dog being rehabilitated. Given what I've seen in the video, the dog should be put down. There were none of the normal triggers of an attack here. Feeling sorry for the dog for having a bad owner doesn't mean I think it should be saved, it just means it's a shame that animal has to loose it's life because someone was too lazy to train it properly.

Other dog threads have had different circumstances in which I don't think the dog should be put down. If a kid jumps a locked fence into a yard and is attacked by a dog defending it's yard, then I would defend the dog. It was doing what it was trained to do and the sole reason we domesticated wolves for in the beginning ... defending us and our herds. We did not domesticate them to ride around in purses. When I own a dog, it is for protection first. I also make sure it's trained properly. I can honestly say less than 10% of dog owners train their dog properly, hence my comment about needing a licence.

You're comments make it sound like the human always has the right to live even when they are doing something stupid that brings on a dog attack, which I obviously disagree with. And that certainly isn't the case in this video. The dog should be put down, but that doesn't lessen the sadness of knowing with a proper owner it would still be alive.
 
MonsterFishKeepers.com