Horrible Dog:Dog Attack - what would you do?

[LasVegasRN]

I agree Moondog. I've had dogs all my life and none of them have ever gotten out of the yard.

Maybe because they were all house dogs and didn't stay in the yard and never got out of our home.

In all the years I've had Apollo, he's never, and I do mean never, gotten out of the house or yard. In fact, just recently the lawn guy left my back gate open. I let Apollo out every morning and afternoon for 2 DAYS before I realized that gate was left open. He never went through it.

Training? Divine intervention? Who knows?? But, I can still say my dogs have never gotten out.

[ptremaine]

The only time our former dog, a Giant Schnauzer, was out of our control, was the time my then 14 year old son took the dog for a walk to the park across the street, and to hit some golf balls as the dog did his routine [which was to run in the woods, sweep back to the fields and then do some obedience work]. The dog was off lead, because that's allowed over there, and the dog had NEVER run off, never. He was also well trained but never left to his own devices like that before.

My son, like many 14 year old boys, was busy concentrating on his game while the dog was off happily rooting in the woods, and the kid forgot about the dog. As my son worked his way around the fields, hitting golf balls and retrieving them, the kid eventually decided to come home. Except he'd completely forgotten about Zephyr. Zephyr had always been taken to the park on a lead and had to be due to the fact there was a 5 lane road to cross to get there and back again to our home. That day was election day, November 4th, 1992. The park was next to the local elementary school, where the precinct was holding the voting. So there was plenty of traffic and dusk arrived early.

At about 5:30 p.m, I heard a knock on the front door. I open it up and there stood two teen aged boys, with Zephyr between them! I was SHOCKED, not only by Zephyr being there, but because it dawned on me that my silly son had somehow lost the dog and came home without telling me the dog wasn't home!!! I bellowed for my son to come downstairs and explain himself, and he too was shocked - he thought the dog was home, until he realized he'd forgotten poor Zephyr. :(

The boys informed me that Zephyr was found in the middle of the road, calmly trying to cross the street, while traffic zoomed by [typical speed: 45 mph, though the official speed is 30 mph]. People had stopped and let him halfway across but the boys felt he might not make it the other half, and rescued him. Checked his tags and brought him home.

I was almost weeping with joy, but angry with my son too. My silly son was very very circumspent and Zephyr was completely nonplussed by the whole incident. He'd never come home alone, because in 6 years, he'd never been alone in public. But he did know the way home, and when he was done, he headed there, alone. .....Man, I miss that dog. :(

PT

[spidey]

Containment is often not a failsafe thing and anyone who claims othewise hasn't owned dogs long enough.

I don't think this is true at all, IMO if you have a dog who's potentially dangerous, and you can't contain it so it's not a threat, you shouldn't have it. Your right to own a dog-aggressive dog doesn't trump other peoples' rights to not have your dog rip their dogs apart.

[Sansano]

Originally posted by spidey
I don't think this is true at all, IMO if you have a dog who's potentially dangerous, and you can't contain it so it's not a threat, you shouldn't have it. Your right to own a dog-aggressive dog doesn't trump other peoples' rights to not have your dog rip their dogs apart.

You say it like having a dog aggressive dog was done on purpose. It happens a lot. Learn more about the breed and you may find that out.

And of course the owner is responsbile for their dog actions here. I am not arguing that. I am just commenting on your attitude towards folks who may have those types of dogs.

[Birdie'sMom]

I have to agree that if you, yourself, feel that your dog is aggressive and would harm another dog, but don't feel confident enough to say that your dog will never escape, then you shouldn't own that dog. Spidey is exactly right. Why should your right to own an aggressive dog be greater than another person's right to walk their dog safely down the street ON a leash without getting killed by your dog. If you feel that your dog aggressive dog is 100% secure in your home with no chance of getting out than that's another story. This is not twards any one person, but more about the story that we are talking about.

[LasVegasRN]

Originally posted by Sansano
You say it like having a dog aggressive dog was done on purpose. It happens a lot. Learn more about the breed and you may find that out.

And of course the owner is responsbile for their dog actions here. I am not arguing that. I am just commenting on your attitude towards folks who may have those types of dogs.

Following your line of thought, then once it's known that you have a dog-aggressive dog on your hands, a responsible, RESPONSIBLE owner would MAKE sure containment is NEVER breached. By any means necessary.

If they can't do that then they shouldn't own/keep the dog.

[Sansano]

Originally posted by LasVegasRN
Following your line of thought, then once it's known that you have a dog-aggressive dog on your hands, a responsible, RESPONSIBLE owner would MAKE sure containment is NEVER breached. By any means necessary.

If they can't do that then they shouldn't own/keep the dog.

100% in agreement.:)

[spidey]

You say it like having a dog aggressive dog was done on purpose. It happens a lot. Learn more about the breed and you may find that out.

I'm not following your logic here, what does that have to do with anything? (and there's no need to be snarky ;) ). Others have addressed this well, but how is it not on purpose when you know that the dog is dog aggressive and choose to keep it? Yes, the breed in general tends toward dog aggression, therefore someone who owns one, especially one who's proven itself to be dog aggressive, has a responsibility to ensure their dog doesn't terrorise the neighbourhood. It's got nothing to do with how often it happens, and everything to do with people not choosing and caring for their dogs appropriately. Sure, very few people probably choose the breed because it's dog aggressive, but what's that got to do with anything? If you own a breed that's prone to aggression, and especially if you own an individual dog with a rap sheet, you should ensure that it doesn't run around killing other dogs, that's nobody's responsibility but yours. Breed tendencies aren't an excuse for irresponsible ownership.

My "attitude" is that this owner knew their dog was dangerous, and didn't take the proper steps to keep it from being a menace to the neighbourhood. I don't think we disagree on that, so I'm not sure why you felt the need to say what you did.

[Sansano]

Originally posted by spidey
I'm not following your logic here, what does that have to do with anything? (and there's no need to be snarky ;) ). Others have addressed this well, but how is it not on purpose when you know that the dog is dog aggressive and choose to keep it? Yes, the breed in general tends toward dog aggression, therefore someone who owns one, especially one who's proven itself to be dog aggressive, has a responsibility to ensure their dog doesn't terrorise the neighbourhood. It's got nothing to do with how often it happens, and everything to do with people not choosing and caring for their dogs appropriately. Sure, very few people probably choose the breed because it's dog aggressive, but what's that got to do with anything? If you own a breed that's prone to aggression, and especially if you own an individual dog with a rap sheet, you should ensure that it doesn't run around killing other dogs, that's nobody's responsibility but yours. Breed tendencies aren't an excuse for irresponsible ownership.

My "attitude" is that this owner knew their dog was dangerous, and didn't take the proper steps to keep it from being a menace to the neighbourhood. I don't think we disagree on that, so I'm not sure why you felt the need to say what you did.

I agree with pretty much everything you said in this post. You put the blame squarely where it should be..the owner.

Only caveat I have is with your comment about 'choosing to keep the dog' when you know it's dog aggressive. If you get a Rottweiler there is a chance that it will be dog aggressive. If you can't deal with that chance, then the breed may not be for you. Same goes for adding another same sex dog to a Rottweiler houselhold. You have to decide beforheand if you have the ability to seperate completely if need be. If not, then don't add another same-sex dog. And I say 'you' rhetorically and not you specifically.

:)

[ptremaine]

Look, everyone agrees: if you own a dog, any dog, you have a responsibility to NOT let that dog roam around, period. Dogs don't belong roaming, urban, suburban or rural. A dog belongs in the owner's control, whether on the owner's property, at another's property or other location.

I've met many dog aggressive Rotts at dog shows in my area; I doubt it's a geographical thing. ;)

A month ago, sitting my vet's office, which is located in a dicey urban neighborhood not especially close to my home [but he grew up with Rotties, his dad was a ScH enthusiast, titled his dogs in AKC and ScH and bred some litters rarely over 39 years as a vet and the son, my vet helped and participated while the dad was alive]. In comes a guy with an enormous oversized Rottie. That sucker must have been easily 160 lbs. of dog - his front legs were like tree trunks, his paws bigger than a big man's fist. It was like seeing Paul Bunyon in Rottweiler clothing. :D

The dog was a male, my girl was sitting across the waiting room minding her own business. She did try to sniff him by stretching her neck, but remained sitting between my legs. This dog began staring at her, she began staring back and all of a sudden, he roars and starts this horrid growling. His owner, a big huge guy himself, tried to settle the dog with wimpy baby talk [!!!], and the dog kept up his routine. I finally took my dog outside after I tried to speak to the owner about the aggression and he kept making excuses.

I've never seen a male act that way towards a bitch before, but I suppose it happens. However, that Rottie should have been muzzled at a minimum, as the owner could in no way have held that dog back from an attack. Nor could he have pulled the dog off any other dog or critter.

Do I approve of that sort of aggression towards other dogs? I don't approve or disapprove - I acknowledge that some dogs are dog aggressive and some owners are total idiots who haven't the skills or guts to control their animals.

Rotties can be dog aggressive. If anyone doesn't like that fact, then make sure your own is never allowed in public if it is and it's kept secured at all times; or get a different dog. :p

PT

[spidey]

Only caveat I have is with your comment about 'choosing to keep the dog' when you know it's dog aggressive. If you get a Rottweiler there is a chance that it will be dog aggressive.

Ah, perhaps I wasn't clear. What I meant was that a dog whose shown itself to be aggressive to the point of having a bite history (as this dog did) warrants some extra attention, extra attention which not everyone can be expected to provide (even someone who was prepared for a dog-aggressive dog will not necessarily have been prepared for this level of aggression). I'm sure you'll agree that there's a difference between "dog aggression" and "unprovoked killing", we're talking about degrees here, and while many people would be willing to be responsible for a dog who can't do group dog things or go off-leash, fewer are willing to take on or keep a dog who's proven that it will kill another dog as soon as look at it if given the chance. I'd say that most dogs who we call "dog aggressive" wouldn't behave the way this dog did. If you choose to keep a dog whose shown itself to have tendencies toward the latter (and many people wouldn't, as we've seen from some of the posts here), you'd better be prepared to ensure it doesn't get the chance to rip your neighbour's dog apart.

Sorry, I misunderstood where you were coming from, I think we're all on the same page here and just coming at it from different angles. :)

[Muckdogs]

Originally posted by spidey
Ah, perhaps I wasn't clear. What I meant was that a dog whose shown itself to be aggressive to the point of having a bite history (as this dog did) warrants some extra attention, extra attention which not everyone can be expected to provide (even someone who was prepared for a dog-aggressive dog will not necessarily have been prepared for this level of aggression). I'm sure you'll agree that there's a difference between "dog aggression" and "unprovoked killing", we're talking about degrees here, and while many people would be willing to be responsible for a dog who can't do group dog things or go off-leash, fewer are willing to take on or keep a dog who's proven that it will kill another dog as soon as look at it if given the chance. I'd say that most dogs who we call "dog aggressive" wouldn't behave the way this dog did. If you choose to keep a dog whose shown itself to have tendencies toward the latter (and many people wouldn't, as we've seen from some of the posts here), you'd better be prepared to ensure it doesn't get the chance to rip your neighbour's dog apart.

Sorry, I misunderstood where you were coming from, I think we're all on the same page here and just coming at it from different angles. :)

I don't see the slightest difference between dog agression and unprovoked killing. I am around dog agressive dogs all the time and have little doubt that they would kill other dogs if given the opportunity. I have never seen dogs jump one another for the fun of it, it is always a serious dominance issue.

[moondog]

I see the difference between dog aggression and unprovoked killing as being exactly what you referred to........opportunity, or lack thereof. :)

[spidey]

I have never seen dogs jump one another for the fun of it, it is always a serious dominance issue.

I'm not suggesting that they do it for the fun of it, I'm saying that there's a difference between a desire for dominance and a desire to kill. I've been around plenty of dog aggressive dogs, and IME very few of them would kill another dog (especially unprovoked), unless the dog challenged them/didn't indicate submission. I owned a dog aggressive dog (not at Rott), and while he'd keep challenging dogs who'd submitted, to make sure they weren't getting uppity, he never indicated any desire to KILL (as long as the other dog submitted), just to dominate. IMO a dog who ignores another dog's indications of submission and attacks to kill anyway is unstable. As is a dog who attacks to kill unprovoked. And I certainly don't see this kind of behaviour as in any way a desirable trait of any breed unless you're breeding dogs to fight each other, which (I hope) nobody here is. I think we're going to have to agree to disagree here. :)

[Muckdogs]

More than likely, the Rott in question did not consciously desire to kill the pom. It was probably more a prey based incident, like I said. grab the prey, shake the prey until it stops moving and move on. Just ike dogs who chase and catch cats. Usually the same outcome. Dominance or dog aggression usually does not surface unless a threat is perceived, and from my experience threats are not usually perceived form much smaller dogs or dogs of the opposite sex. Unless, of course, the pom went defensive or alternatively aggressive, as they are sometimes know to do.