http://www.wfmynews2.com/news/waterc...?storyid=86779
Weird, but not funny, so therefore doesn't deserve a place in news of the weird.
Bizarre story...
Printable View
http://www.wfmynews2.com/news/waterc...?storyid=86779
Weird, but not funny, so therefore doesn't deserve a place in news of the weird.
Bizarre story...
:dizzy2:
That's pretty horrible, never heard of such a thing before. Never leave dogs with small children.
Why did the dog survive? I have 3 and I love them dearly, but if they ever did anything remotely like this, I would beat them to death with my own two hands. I suspect they know it.
All Pitbulls anywhere should be put down. The serve one purpose, utterly unpredictable violence. Get a friggin Jack Russel or even a Retriever if you're after a 'guard' dog.
Just another reason I'm a one cat woman.
:no:
I was always under the impression that, as fighting dogs, pitbulls were bred for agression towards other dogs, and docility towards humans. I mean, it's no use having a prize-winning fighting dog if it keeps trying to kill you. While you are going to get some members of the breed which are utterly unacceptable in their behaviour towards humans, as in this case, that's the case with all kinds of dog.
The bigger problem here is that someone would leave their dog alone with their two year old child.
Actually never leave an unsterilzed dog with anything smaller than it. My aunt had an unfixed golden lab that many times tried to mount my sister, who was around 10 but a little smaller than the dog. He ended getting the big sleep after he tried to attack my cousins baby.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
People call dogs mans (enphasis on man) best friend, but deep down there wolfs.
No nice way to say it, this thread is full of ignorance.
Domesticated dogs are not naturally mean animals, like humans some individuals can have 'mental disabilities', and some individuals can be naturally more aggressive than others. Saying that any breed is more aggressive than others is a myth as far as I'm concerned, and have never seen anything other than some half-baked 'studies' that demonstrate otherwise. The meanest dog that my family ever had was a Beagle named Daisy (the only Beagle we ever had, we've always had Golden Retrievers and one Black Lab), who only lived about 6 months before she was hit by a car. She was incredibly aggressive, and would bite all of us. Mom later told me when I was older that she was going to give Daisy to the shelter in a few weeks because she wasn't showing any signs of getting better.
Dogs have individual quirks and personalities like humans do, ask any dog owner. The key thing that people tend to do these days is blame anything but themselves for problems, and an aggressive/improperly trained dog is a poster child for this. One of the reasons for the pit bull/doberman/german shepard/rottweiler myths is because those breeds, esp. pit bulls, are incredibly popular amongst the trash of society that view them as status symbols and/or 'security solutions' for their homes. In my most humble opinion, it's these owners who should be euthanised, not the dogs that are a direct result of their ignorance and neglect. One of the absolute nicest dogs I've ever known in my life was this incredibly huge, big, stupid, happy rottweiler that lived a few houses down from one of my friends growing up. You could literally run at the dog as a total stranger shouting, carrying a gun, knife/etc, and it'd roll over on it's back and wag it's tail. My brother in law has a half breed pit bull they rescued from the shelter, and it is also one of the nicest, most laid-back animals I've known. Have never once in my life heard him bark either, I didn't even think he could until I asked and they told me he could.
In short, it's all about training, discipline, and socialization. Boy dogs will tend to hump things, some moreso than others. Properly train them to respond to commands, and even a 6 year old can make them stop. Socialize them, and they won't be aggressive towards strangers and other animals. As some people here are so fond of jumping on others for anecdotal evidence like what I've said above, fine, don't take my word for it. Go read about it, go talk to animal shelter folks, dog obedience school trainers, etc. Don't blame the dogs for human stupidity, neglect, and abuse.
As a dog owner I agree with the post above 100%.
As a dog owner, I don't. I agree that human owners not raising dogs correctly is the core issue and that's what needs to be addressed. By I don't agree that the dog is harmless and should be rehabilitated. A dog that sodomized a child to the point where it tore apart the child's anus (from what I could gather in the discussion) clearly has crossed several lines and there's no rehabilitating a beast like that.Quote:
Originally Posted by TB666
I don't think there are 'bad breeds' but there are some breeds that were bred for energy and aggression. Let me ask you, could you imagine a basset hound doing this?
But I do agree with the sentiment that people encouraging the dogs to become violent, or allowing it through neglect of their responsiblities, should be charged as though they were aggressive or careless with a weapon in any other form.
Dogs can be rehabilitated far easier than humans can, they are much simpler creatures that don't feel or understand concepts like good, evil, love, hate. I would challenge you to recognize what is essentially a need for vengance in the situation, given how I read your post.Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Corleone
Absolutely could imagine any dog doing this, given the right (wrong) circumstances. Again, I would challenge you to recognize the prejudice of your thoughts and message. I'm not yet a father so I can't say that I truly understand being in those shoes, but *if* I were the father of the child I'd probably say the same thing as you are, but that doesn't neccesarily make it right.Quote:
I don't think there are 'bad breeds' but there are some breeds that were bred for energy and aggression. Let me ask you, could you imagine a basset hound doing this?
Couldn't agree more. In addition to charges of animal cruelty and neglect, which are crimes that could probably stand to have the penalties increased.Quote:
But I do agree with the sentiment that people encouraging the dogs to become violent, or allowing it through neglect of their responsiblities, should be charged as though they were aggressive or careless with a weapon in any other form.
This isn't aggressive behaviour, its typical male-dog behaviour. By some horrid turn of events, the dog actually succeeded.
However, this isn't an example that should contribute to the current pit bull hysteria.
Well a male dog during puberty has no control over it's hormones.Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Corleone
I got 3 male dogs myself and once they reach that stage they will try to hump anything so something like this is a possibility.
Trying ?? YesQuote:
Don Corleone Let me ask you, could you imagine a basset hound doing this?
Succeeding ?? Not really, maybe if it got really really lucky.
Certainly, but how long has the gene pool for certain breeds been too tightly controlled and recessive-laced? Perhaps the original "formula" has drifted too far?Quote:
Originally Posted by Big King Sanctaphrax
My mother owned A Kerry Blue Terrier that never turned the "steel blue" color that begat the breed's name. When she queried the breeder she was informed that this was an increasing occurrence with the breed as a whole. Most dog breeds are the result of forced genetic manipulation and, as such, do not represent a naturally selected genetic pattern. Such creations are subject to a different range of problems as they have not been refined over the course of time in the natural process.
Other issues:
Yes, leaving kids alone with pets isn't always wise.
Yes, proper training and socialization is important for dogs of all shapes and sizes.
Ultimately, I agree with the Don. Though I should show more restraint, I suspect that I would put down any being that harmed my daughter in such a way with great dispatch -- very shortly after dialing 9-1-1.
This is sick....what's almost as sick is that there are people, who are against killing this dog.:thumbsdown:
We can hope the two year old is still to young to remember later on.... and hopefully the family won't tell em' about it.
That is disgusting. Dog should be shot.
the dog is a dog....a male dog will hump air if it is so inclined.....
in the dog´s perspective the child was just another member of his pack.......this is why you can´t leave a dog with a child that is smaller than it...
the person that left the dog alone with the child is the real responsible here.
Not true. There is a variation in every specie, and there is alsu usually a variation between different races. The reason for this is basic evolution, some need an instinct to run to survive, some need an instinct to attack. Some breed have a better instinct for hunting than others, and different breeds hunt different things.Quote:
Originally Posted by Whacker
Anyway, that the dog should be put down, without question. Once a dog starts showing aggression, that's the only thing to do.
Would you put a dog down if it humped your leg? Because that's essentially what this dog did, except in a far more tragic context-a context brought about by the negligence of its owner.
I'm always open to new ideas, but this is myth. Can you provide some real facts to back this up? Not just you or someone standing on a soapbox and stating something very emphatically. Show me some real scientific evidence of this, please.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
I agree mostly with Whacker.
But that woman was a fool, leaving her baby with a Pitbull, a PITBULL for Christ sake. Those things are vile and aggressive. But at least she didn't have a Rottweiler.
My advice, get a female dog.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big King Sanctaphrax
This dog did a little more than hump a leg:embarassed: It's not about what it tried to do or wanted to do, it's what it did that matters.
:wall:Quote:
Originally Posted by Whacker
There is no sign of aggression here.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
Since the dog's age isn't mentioned I think there is a big chance that it's in puberty. The dog's hormons went overboard with bad results.
And one question has been on my mind when I read this story and that is, how did the dog get past the diaper ??:inquisitive:
Are you saying that you don't want this dog put down?:inquisitive:Quote:
Originally Posted by TB666
In principle, the dog did not do anything worthy of such punishment, unless you feel humping is punishable by death - in which case we'll have to drastically alter our trade agreements with the nations of Southeast Asia to factor in the massive amount of dead dogs we'll have to export to their meat markets.Quote:
Originally Posted by scooter_the_shooter
The fault lies with the parent. A dog cannot discern between good humping and bad humping, and it is not an aggressive act.
In reality, this dog will surely never find a decent home after this, and the only humane thing to do would be to put it down.
Based on the article and my exprience with male dogs, I say no, he should not be put down.Quote:
Originally Posted by scooter_the_shooter
It should not have occurred. The truly responsible ones are the dog's keepers who -- in their ignorance and foolishness -- allowed their child to be violated. The dog creature is not to perish.
Different hardware, but still a dog. Children should not be left alone.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rythmic
Panzer you have a point. I agree with you to a small degree but even so, I'd still happily shoot that beast.
And to those of you who want this dog to live, why don't you adopt it.:juggle2: I'm pretty sure there's one family that doesn't want it anymore.
This is merely a quick question: why is it that people always "neatly" use words such as "putting down", "putting to sleep", and so on, for pets that require "removal"? Why not use the word "kill" for it is exactly the action that would be performed, if it is to be. They will kill the creature, or they will not.
I didn't use it before because I thought other people wouldn't like it. I have no problem with saying "let's kill it" instead of "let's put it down"
Thats why I use "put it down" and I imagine that's why most others do too.
If I allowed my emotions to rule over me; I would say the dog should be put to the long sleep. However, as somebody who loves animals, and accepts that animals (and this certainly includes humans) are prone to do things they cannot totally control, I would say that I feel disgusted towards the parents.
I have wrestled with myself quite a bit if Pitbulls are aggressive as a breed, or trained to be aggressive. Ultimately, from what I've seen working at the Humane Society, I have come to believe that Pitbulls are truly a lost cause. Even the ones that have been there since they were puppies, have a knack for causing mayhem, and a reputation for biting and mauling without provocation (I won't touch the buggers). Now, this isn't to say all of them behave this way, I know from some people that I have volunteered with, who have adopted Pitbulls, they turn out quite normal... but, even so, they remain a fiercely loyal and protective breed, and they develop a certain Maternal or Paternal bond with their owners and children. This can go so far as to say, that they do treat Children as though they were their own, and as a form of dominance Male Dogs will Hump/Penetrate their offspring and mates to show them whose in charge. So... I don't know. Male Pitbulls are really a different matter than females in this case, although females will probably attempt to do the same, you won't have to worry about anal hemorrhaging. The fact of the matter is, as a responsible parent, I would just go without the big animals, because my Yorkshire seems to do the job just fine.
I have a few books on animal behaviour here, but since it's a little difficult to post them here, wiki will have to do:Quote:
Originally Posted by Whacker
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog_aggression
Very brief, but I can't find anything better on ze net. It really is quite logical. Aggression is a part of the dog's instincts. Instincts are determined by 2 things; experience and genetics. Different breeds have different genetics, so different breeds will have different instincts, and thus different aggression levels.Quote:
Originally Posted by wiki
[quote=HoreTore]I have a few books on animal behaviour here, but since it's a little difficult to post them here, wiki will have to do:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog_aggression[/quote]
Awesome, link goes to an article with no citations, and a few external links. Of those, only two have information I found after about an hour of clicking and reading which imply that aggression is inherent to certain breeds, and those two were also completely unsupported. If anything, on the Animal Behavior site, there is a link to an article by a behaviorist who mentions absolutely nothing about certian breeds being more aggressive, if anything she seems to indicate that is more of a myth.
Still waiting on something conclusive here. :2thumbsup: Someone show me a study done using the scientific method, blinded, that shows conclusively that some breeds are more aggresive than others. Statistics such as dog bite numbers alone prove absolutely nothing.
This link is about as close as it gets to scientific study of canine aggression - that is to say, not very close. Obviously, there is a gap in real research done, versus media outrage over individual incidents.
Note the prescient conclusion at about mid-page:
Anecdotally, I've been attcked/charged by dogs 6 times in the past 10 years, bitten 3 times, most recently, yesterday. All of the animals were pitbulls. Do I think pitbulls are inherently more prone to aggression?Quote:
The age group with the second-highest amount of fatalities due to a dog attack are 2-year-old children. Over 88% of these fatalities occurred when the 2-year-old child was left unsupervised with a dog(s) or the child wandered off to the location of the dog.
No. I think pitbull owners in my town are more irresponsible. They tend to have them to protect against detection of criminal activity. How do I know this?
I've reported each attack (as required by workrules) , and on 5 occasions, when the animal-control guy arrived, he called the police to assist, not in handling the dog, but the people, who it turned out had been running meth labs, or had stolen carparts stored. Sadly (for me), these folks have no money I can recover for compensation.
I keep hoping that the next dogbite will be from "Bootsie" the Pomeranian, owned by a millionaire.
Is there not a lot of money in dealing Methamphetamines?
They're probably burning it all on their own drug of choice.Quote:
Originally Posted by Big King Sanctaphrax
Yeah, but 2 things:Quote:
Originally Posted by Big King Sanctaphrax
1) That cash is not accessable by me in a civil damage suit. The cops keep it locked up for years as evidence, when they can recover it - which they usually don't, it being passed up the druglord chain.
2) The yay-hoo's around here often start using their own product, eating into profit, and leading to forgetful stuff like "where's the dog?".
When I see what kind of people have dogs and how they (mis-)treat them, I feel we need a kind of pet-license that can be revoked in such cases. Apart from that, I'm of the opinion that the owners are completely responsible for their dogs' actions. If you own a dog that is capable of killing children you must train it properly so that it doesn't happen. Seeing that most people already have problems to call their dogs to order this seems to be the core problem.
I'd say kill a dog who had the intention of killing someone. Killing a dog for natural behaviour which the owner could expect from it, well I think that's wrong. The poor dog doesn't know what happened. Ofcourse what happened to the poor kid is bad, really really bad and sad, however if someone is responible it's the parents.
I agree. Pet-license is a good idea for some races, like Pitbull Terriers. It aren't bad animals, but they aren't good with kids and other dogs. Treat them well and they are the most adorable creatures, but they are dominant and need a headstrong owner. Problem is that if they bite, their jaws lock and they start tearing. Only people with a lot of experience should be allowed to have them. These guys obviously were unfit.Quote:
Originally Posted by R'as al Ghul
the jaws locking thing is a myth.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
Not really, pitbulls jaws work like a scissor, and when they bite they keep at it very naturally. 'Locking' isn't really the right word, it's a bit like the talons of a hawk. Needs no extra effort to keep biting.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ronin
[QUOTE=Whacker]Then go buy a book on animal behaviour/animal genetics. Or loan one at a library. The internet isn't a very good source of information, you know. And statistics isn't the answer btw, genetics is.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
I am going to take this oppurtunity to try to seperate two issues that got melded together in this thread. The first issue is the inate instinct and behavior of dogs and whether that changes according to breed. The second is what to do with a family pet after they have severly injured a member of the family. I am going to ignore the first issue because I don't really know the answer on it but I have my suspicions and ideas. Though I suspect your opinion on issue one will influence your opinion on issue two.
I am surprised that no one on here has yet to suggest simply getting rid of the dog. The opinions seem to be in one of two camps. The "do nothing because it was just an animal doing its animal thing" camp and the "kill it because it is a monster and will never be rehabilitated" camp. If I caught the dog in the act that was described, my first act would be to forcibly remove the dog from the victim. If the dog happened to get hurt or killed in that encounter, then "oh well" because I would have much more important things to worry about. Now, once the animal is removed from the victim, the question becomes "what the heck do I do with this dog?" While murdering the dog after the fact would probably make me feel a little better in the short term, I do not think it would solve anything. My child would still be damaged and traumatized and killing the dog could not possibly change that. But I would immediately get rid of the dog. Not to family or friends where my child could encounter it again, but far far away. And not because the dog is "inherently violent and evil" as some on here have charged. I would do it because I would not want my child to live with the being that hurt them so much. What kind of dad would I be if I said, "now little johnny, I know your butt hurts but Fido was just being a dog so why don't you two make up." So, I guess from my opinion on issue two, you could probably make out my opinion on issue one. All I'll say about issue one is that I guess I fall somewhere in the middle of everyone who has posted on here.
@Privateerkev: Shame on you for bringing reason and moderation here!
Indeed. :whip:
I have to say that, that is the first time I've heard that one. I'm used to accusations of bringing drama into sistuations. Not the opposite. :laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
Perhaps you can start another gun control thread and then wax on poetically on one point of view or the other -- this will quickly trash any illusions that you are being analytical or moderate. Of course, starting such threads in the Backroom is morally analogous to opening a head shop near a rehab center.....:devilish:Quote:
Originally Posted by Privateerkev
This case is a clear justification why we should have strict gun laws IMO. Clearly your average human is very irresponsible -- if an adolescent aggressive breed male dog is being left alone with a very young child, then what about a gun which doesn't bark or hump but shoot?Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
:quiet: <-- no that's not the middle finger
*thread subject too depressing for wishy-washy me to engage in*
Er, not to distract from the topic at hand, but while dog's do indeed hump and bark, guns rarely shoot spontaneously. That kind of comparison would require either the child or adult to take the dog and use it (either intentionally or accidentally) to sodomize the child.
Ajax
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
While I hope I am being analytical, I do not claim to be a moderate. I tend to hold strong views and opinions on things. I just try to make them well thought out views and opinions. If someone starts a gun control thread, I will comment on there about what I think.
:sweatdrop:
I wasn't being serious. ~;)Quote:
Originally Posted by ajaxfetish
Male baby. The only indication that I saw regarding gender. Seems they tried to avoid that.Quote:
Originally Posted by article
For some reason the thought of a female baby being penetrated in her peep is more disturbing than a male baby being penetrated in the pooper.
Either way, it's not a pleasant thought.
So does the dog have to register as a sex offender? Stay away from parks and schools?