# help with character reference for court



## bonesygirl (Mar 2, 2012)

I'm going to try to keep this as vague as possible, because I'm paranoid. 

A friend of mine has a dog of a breed with a poor reputation. There was an incident, a small fluffy dog was bit. No permanent injuries (the small dog needed stitches, which my friend paid for without question), but the owners are fighting to have my friend's dog euthanized. 

My friend asked me to write a letter attesting to the character of her dog, who really is lovely, despite this small issue with certain small breed dogs. 

I have no idea where to start. I'm really worried about the whole situation, and I was hoping one of the lovely members of this forum might have some idea. 

Thanks in advance!


----------



## HollowHeaven (Feb 5, 2012)

I would be as diplomatic as possible, and sound as mature as possible in the litter. Tell about the dog's behavior and manners. Talk the dog up but don't lie.

I would also suggest to your friend that she have a trainer/behaviorist come in and observe the dog and give their opinion on it as well, maybe even a vet.

And I'm sorry this is happening to her.


----------



## bonesygirl (Mar 2, 2012)

HollowHeaven said:


> I would be as diplomatic as possible, and sound as mature as possible in the litter. Tell about the dog's behavior and manners. Talk the dog up but don't lie.
> 
> I would also suggest to your friend that she have a trainer/behaviorist come in and observe the dog and give their opinion on it as well, maybe even a vet.
> 
> And I'm sorry this is happening to her.


One of the first requirements the court made was that the dog see a behaviourist. She got a glowing report, did everything that was asked of her, and they're still fighting for the dog's life. 

Thanks for the advice!


----------



## So Cavalier (Jul 23, 2010)

> There was an incident, a small fluffy dog was bit. No permanent injuries (the small dog needed stitches, which my friend paid for without question), but the owners are fighting to have my friend's dog euthanized.
> 
> My friend asked me to write a letter attesting to the character of her dog, who really is lovely, *despite this small issue with certain small breed dogs*.


Since you have provided no information other than a small dog was injured, but apparently not killed, as an owner of small dogs "small issue" doesn't sound too small to me. If the owner had the dog completely under control and the small dog came into the other dog's space, that's one thing but......I certainly don't think a dog that attacks "certain small breed dogs" to be a safe dog. I am having a hard time wording my feelings because there is just not enough information but if my dog was attacked by another dog that had a history of attacking small dogs, I certainly would be calling for some drastic measures.....like I said....not enough information for me here.....


----------



## bonesygirl (Mar 2, 2012)

So Cavalier said:


> Since you have provided no information other than a small dog was injured, but apparently not killed, as an owner of small dogs "small issue" doesn't sound too small to me. If the owner had the dog completely under control and the small dog came into the other dog's space, that's one thing but......I certainly don't think a dog that attacks "certain small breed dogs" to be a safe dog. I am having a hard time wording my feelings because there is just not enough information but if my dog was attacked by another dog that had a history of attacking small dogs, I certainly would be calling for some drastic measures.....like I said....not enough information for me here.....


The dog doesn't have a history of attacking small dogs. My friend is being extremely cautious to avoid the possibility of another incident. My poor word choice, I guess. As another owner of a small dog, I'm not trying to deny the seriousness of the situation. Nobody's fighting for my friend's right to bring her dog to dog parks or pet stores. She literally just wants to be able to bring the dog to work and back home again. She has told the court multiple times she will do anything to avoid the destruction order, including muzzling her in public. 

This dog has played with and hung around my own small dog without issue for three years. I would not agree to write the letter if I didn't believe this dog is safe, albeit with a little management.


----------



## hanksimon (Mar 18, 2009)

Some dogs may be dog aggressive. Small dogs that haven't been socialized sometimes demonstrate aggression to large dogs. However, just like Steve Erkel picking a fight with Mike Tyson, the bigger one is viewed as the villain. 
Here are some suggestions, use only the parts that are true:

I have known "Fido" since she was a puppy. In those X years, she has been a model citizen, well-trained, obedient, friendly, and a completely lovely personality with friendly people and dogs. Fido greets me and other people with great enthusiasm and happiness. I look forward to seeing Fido when I visit "Fido-owner," because she is so sweet.

You might repeat some details of the results of the behavorist in your words and from your experience. Good luck.


----------



## bonesygirl (Mar 2, 2012)

hanksimon said:


> Some dogs may be dog aggressive. Small dogs that haven't been socialized sometimes demonstrate aggression to large dogs. However, just like Steve Erkel picking a fight with Mike Tyson, the bigger one is viewed as the villain.
> Here are some suggestions, use only the parts that are true:
> 
> I have known "Fido" since she was a puppy. In those X years, she has been a model citizen, well-trained, obedient, friendly, and a completely lovely personality with friendly people and dogs. Fido greets me and other people with great enthusiasm and happiness. I look forward to seeing Fido when I visit "Fido-owner," because she is so sweet.
> ...


This is great, thanks! I actually work alongside this friend. My lab has been playing with this dog since she was three months. Part of the reason mine is so sociable is because of my friend and her dog. Bones would jump on her face and bite at her lips for months without even a rebuke.


----------



## Roloni (Aug 5, 2011)

I would recommend that you persuade your friend.... and the owner of the little dog settle out of court.
No true dog owner/lover would want to see another dog euthanized.


----------



## bonesygirl (Mar 2, 2012)

Roloni said:


> I would recommend that you persuade your friend.... and the owner of the little dog settle out of court.
> No true dog owner/lover would want to see another dog euthanized.


They tried. The owner of the other dog won't listen to anything that doesn't involve euthanasia. He told my friend he is a big business owner and if he wants her dog euthanized, it will happen. He's literally behaving like a cartoon villian.


----------



## luv2byte (Oct 21, 2009)

To say a dog has issues with small breeds so it should be put down is wrong. Look at breeds like huskies, they are notorious for not doing well with small animals or Jack Russells that are known to kill cats? Simple. Keep control of your pet. It does sound like they took responsibility, so depending on circumstances I would think they need to know how to control their dog - such as what to do when it goes nuts at the end of its leash & not letting it be off leash. Seems the biggest issue is not being in control of her own dog.


----------



## bonesygirl (Mar 2, 2012)

luv2byte said:


> To say a dog has issues with small breeds so it should be put down is wrong. Look at breeds like huskies, they are notorious for not doing well with small animals or Jack Russells that are known to kill cats? Simple. Keep control of your pet. It does sound like they took responsibility, so depending on circumstances I would think they need to know how to control their dog - such as what to do when it goes nuts at the end of its leash & not letting it be off leash. Seems the biggest issue is not being in control of her own dog.


The attack was sudden and VERY out of character. I mentioned above, this dog had played with my own small breed dog many times without issue. My friend has since changed how she manages the dog. She is now either securely tied and supervised, or on a leash with my friend attached to it. They're also continuing to work with the behaviourist.


----------



## RCloud (Feb 25, 2011)

Everyone else gave you some good advice on how to write a letter, so there isn't much I can add on that, but as some added comfort, if the small dog wasn't killed, seriously maimed, has any lasting injuries, there's no records of any other attacks, and the owner paid the vet costs, then I can't see this dog being ordered to be euthanized by a court unless it's in an area that has BSL on it's breed. It just sounds to me like the small dog owner is trying to be a hot shot.


----------



## Roloni (Aug 5, 2011)

bonesygirl said:


> They tried. The owner of the other dog won't listen to anything that doesn't involve euthanasia. He told my friend he is a big business owner and if he wants her dog euthanized, it will happen. He's literally behaving like a cartoon villian.


Then...Its Peanut Butter Jelly time with a baseball bat.


----------



## luv2byte (Oct 21, 2009)

bonesygirl said:


> The attack was sudden and VERY out of character. I mentioned above, this dog had played with my own small breed dog many times without issue. My friend has since changed how she manages the dog. She is now either securely tied and supervised, or on a leash with my friend attached to it. They're also continuing to work with the behaviourist.


Be sure to point all of that out & I suggest your friend go to court with notes of bullet points of things to point out in the event they get flustered or nervous.


----------



## bonesygirl (Mar 2, 2012)

RCloud said:


> Everyone else gave you some good advice on how to write a letter, so there isn't much I can add on that, but as some added comfort, if the small dog wasn't killed, seriously maimed, has any lasting injuries, there's no records of any other attacks, and the owner paid the vet costs, then I can't see this dog being ordered to be euthanized by a court unless it's in an area that has BSL on it's breed. It just sounds to me like the small dog owner is trying to be a hot shot.


Agreed. No BSL in the area. The other owner and his lawyer actually had my friend convinced she had to euth the dog. Thank god her vet looked over the paperwork. He knew someone who works in the court system, and she said that 90% of the people who euth their dogs because of similar situations in our area don't actually have to. They're just pressured into it.


----------



## bonesygirl (Mar 2, 2012)

luv2byte said:


> Be sure to point all of that out & I suggest your friend go to court with notes of bullet points of things to point out in the event they get flustered or nervous.


Thanks for that. She is obviously very emotional over this whole situation. I'm sure note cards would be a huge help.


----------



## RCloud (Feb 25, 2011)

bonesygirl said:


> Agreed. No BSL in the area. The other owner and his lawyer actually had my friend convinced she had to euth the dog. Thank god her vet looked over the paperwork. He knew someone who works in the court system, and she said that 90% of the people who euth their dogs because of similar situations in our area don't actually have to. They're just pressured into it.


Yeah, absolutely encourage her to fight it.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

I don't think any animal should be killed for hurting/killing another animal. I mean, that's just crazy. Should I kill my cat for eating a mouse, kill my dog for killing a rabbit? 

I can't imagine the local laws support killing a dog for a first-time dog aggression event, but I also know that influential/rich people tend to get their own way even if it's completely illegal. I hope she can fight this successfully.


----------



## RCloud (Feb 25, 2011)

Willowy said:


> I don't think any animal should be killed for hurting/killing another animal. I mean, that's just crazy. Should I kill my cat for eating a mouse, kill my dog for killing a rabbit?


I'm glad I'm not the only one that sees this logic.


----------



## hanksimon (Mar 18, 2009)

In your letter, I suggest that you not mention the breed of your dog, but focus on the fact that they played well with your little puppy, trying to illustrate that this behavior was very much out of the ordinary. I agree that the friend should write down bullet points, and then try to put them in a a persuasively emotional order. BTW, was the fluffy dog at fault ... (if I walk into a biker bar and pick a fight...  )

If things are escalating, this may be a Goliath vs. David story, which the newspapers and news media would love to help with...especially with a sweet dog. Big business men really don't like to be portrayed as throwing their weight around and being petty. Bad for business...
I agree that a dog shouldn't be euth'd for going after prey, possibly even cats (given that the cat can escape). And, fighting is a non-issue. 


Different direction -
However, while I'm on the fence for the first offense, I have significant trouble with a dog that has history of purposely killing other dogs. This in no ways applies to this case, but "History" to me, turns killing into a crime and makes the owner liable, if not criminal ... intent to be determined by courts. The business man may be reacting emotionally, projecting this case to the next level. Lawyers are known for be fear mongers and taking examples to an emotional but illogical extreme. ("What if this were your child, instead of your dog, and what if the dog kills te next child it sees. We have to stop it before the dog kills again!" ) This can be the type of thinking that the legal system encourages, and that your friend has to defend against by presenting facts that show a counter-case in real life.


----------



## beretw (Sep 25, 2012)

Is the court taking the circumstances of the incident into consideration?

Was this an off leash dog approaching a leashed one? Was the aggressor off-leash?

I think that these things can speak loudly about the character of the owners, which I'm sure the court is also concerned about.


----------



## MountainDogs (Sep 25, 2012)

> I don't think any animal should be killed for hurting/killing another animal. I mean, that's just crazy. Should I kill my cat for eating a mouse, kill my dog for killing a rabbit?





RCloud said:


> I'm glad I'm not the only one that sees this logic.


To me this is like comparing apples to oranges. 
For a lot of people (including me), dogs are like family members. So when someone elses dog gets loose and kills their beloved pet, that was like family to them. It is incredibly painful.
Maybe the two of you wouldn't demand for the dog that just killed your pets to be put down, but most people would.
And I understand why they would, as I would too.

On top of that, you have to keep in mind that a dog that kills another dog is very, very difficult to rehabilitate. And in some cases impossible.
Combine that with the well known fact that dogs who get loose and kill other people's beloved pets are usually owned by irresponsible people,
and you get a recipe for a new disaster.
Sooner or later a dog like that in the hands of irresponsible owners will hurt or even kill someone's beloved dog again. 
I have seen this happening many times.
So why allow that? 


That said, my post has nothing to do with OP's question. I am merely responding to the statements made by RCloud and Willowy.


----------



## gingerkid (Jul 11, 2012)

MountainDogs said:


> To me this is like comparing apples to oranges.
> For a lot of people (including me), dogs are like family members. So when someone elses dog gets loose and kills their beloved pet, that was like family to them. It is incredibly painful.
> Maybe the two of you wouldn't demand for the dog that just killed your pets to be put down, but most people would.
> And I understand why they would, as I would too.
> ...


Large dogs with high prey drive often mistake small dogs for "prey"... and sometimes that has a tragic but logical and, quite frankly, natural conclusion. And, the fact that small dogs can be killed quite easily by much larger dogs unintentionally during play... a one strike policy is just not fair and criminalizes people who do not deserve it.

Lastly, euthing someone else's dog won't bring yours back, and likely those same "irresponsible" people will just get a new dog of a similar breed/size, treat it and train it (or not) the same way... and the cycle continues. I just don't see how euthing the dog helps the situation any. To me, all it does is euth more dogs in the long run.

OP: I really, really hope your friend wins her case.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

MountainDogs said:


> To me this is like comparing apples to oranges.
> For a lot of people (including me), dogs are like family members. So when someone elses dog gets loose and kills their beloved pet, that was like family to them. It is incredibly painful.
> Maybe the two of you wouldn't demand for the dog that just killed your pets to be put down, but most people would.
> And I understand why they would, as I would too.
> ...



It's a fine line for me. I don't believe that a dog that kills a dog has a major temperament or behavioral issue, to be honest. I don't think animal aggression, in general, is - up to and including killing other dogs, or cats. That said, I own small dogs. If my dog was killed by another dog, I'm not sure how I would react. I'm pretty sure I wouldn't be calling for the other dog to be put down, though. Demanding training, containment, and work with a professional is likely, but -

I just couldn't make the leap to 'my dog is dead. yours should be too'. I guess I'm just not that vengeful, and revenge is the only reason I can think of to demand that a dog be put to sleep for being animal aggressive. Don't get me wrong, I would kill that dog if it would save mine - as in, heat of the moment - but after the fact? No. Not unless there was a track record of the dog being irresponsibly managed and the owners having shown no responsiveness to the previous issues, and to prevent a future one. 

I wouldn't be happy, but 'threat to society' isn't what I would see. 

Truly people aggressive dogs are a whole other thing, for me.


----------



## RCloud (Feb 25, 2011)

MountainDogs said:


> To me this is like comparing apples to oranges.
> For a lot of people (including me), dogs are like family members. So when someone elses dog gets loose and kills their beloved pet, that was like family to them. It is incredibly painful.
> Maybe the two of you wouldn't demand for the dog that just killed your pets to be put down, but most people would.
> And I understand why they would, as I would too.
> ...


I think the thing you need to remember though is that dogs ARE animals. A lot dogs and dog breeds have a very high prey drive, and don't understand that some small dog may in fact be someone's beloved family member. 

If a dog ends up killing another dog, that's absolutely horrible, and I agree that the owner of that dog should take responsibility and pays the consequences, but why should the dog have to pay for behaving like a dog? Especially if it's never happened before.

I had a pet ferret years ago. I LOVED him with all my heart. We use to take him everywhere with us, including on walks in the woods. He walked on a leash and everything. One day, he was attacked by a loose Lab, and killed right in front of us. We had the opportunity to go after the owners (though didn't...he was dead and nothing was going to change that), but we didn't even DREAM about requesting the dog be put to sleep, because it wasn't the dog's fault. Is that comparing "apples to oranges" too?


----------



## Canaqua (Sep 27, 2011)

beretw said:


> Is the court taking the circumstances of the incident into consideration?
> 
> Was this an off leash dog approaching a leashed one? Was the aggressor off-leash?
> 
> I think that these things can speak loudly about the character of the owners, which I'm sure the court is also concerned about.


Yeah, I'm curious about the circumstances too and how that would affect things. If both were off leash (and there's a leash law), both owners are equally at fault and small dog's owner should be more than satisifed with having the vet bill paid. If loose little dog ran up to leashed/under control big dog, little dog owner should suck it up and shut up, their fault and they should be fined or whatever the penalty is for a loose dog. If loose big dog attacked leashed/under control little dog, big dog owner should be trouble...whatever the penalty is for loose dog and vet bills. In our town, ACO orders modifications for dogs that have attacked dogs or people...she uses her best, educated judgement...could be restraint, could be muzzle, could be "cannot leave owner's property" and adequate fencing. If owner doesn't comply, ACO advises selectmen on what to do. Only once has a dog been ordered euthanized (it repeatedly attacked town employees who came on the property to inspect construction work and owners did not comply with ACO's modification orders). A few others have been banished from town after repeated violations and were able to be rehomed somewhere else with an owner who could better manage the dog. 

I'm a bit sensitive to this as, while neither of my dogs are huge (50lbs and 60lbs) and they are not Pits or Pit mixes and automatically assumed to be "bad", I do encounter loose very small dogs rushing up to them, occasionally even attacking them when I have them on a leash. My dogs react, which is appropriate behavior for a dog, it's a DOG! So far, I've been able to step in between them and the little aggressor (one drew blood on my ACD mix), and prevent damage to the little dog, but I sometimes get an earful from tiny dog owners..."Your big dog is sooo mean, it's aggressive, you shouldn't have it out!". Ugh. My dogs are fine. Every dog has a limit to what they should be expected to put up with. IF I owned a tiny dog, I'd sure be a lot more careful with it and not expect every owner of a larger dog to disappear from the face of the earth so I could let my little unsocialized brat run loose. I am very careful with my dogs, they are leashed always around the neighborhood and, when we go to wooded areas off leash, I walk on the steep, rocky, trails deep in the woods where we're unlikely to come across toy dogs. AND, they have good recalls, I can get them back and leash them when I see someone coming who looks like they don't have control over their dog. 

Unfortunately, larger dogs are often blamed for an altercation, regardless of circumstances, because the small dog is much more likely to be hurt. Double, triple that inclination to blame if the larger dog is a Pit or Pit mix.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

Canaqua said:


> I'm a bit sensitive to this as.... /QUOTE]
> 
> I think this is probably the most honest, truthful, thing one of these threads has brought up in a while. The bottom line is we all see the threats to our animal's safety first and most strongly. My 'big' dog (at the moment) is 25lbs. The small one is 10-12. Of COURSE I'm more aware of large dogs charging off leash. That arely happens, admittedly - in fact it's happened all of twice, to all the times we've been run up to by poms and chis (specific ones). But I'm less worried about those dogs, because it's fairly unlikely that my dogs will be killed in a fight with another small dog, OR that my also small dogs will be super blamed or labeled aggressive because of it.
> 
> But the more I look at Thud and realize he's going to grow up to be massive, the more I can envision scenarios where he's charged by a tiny dog, responds at ALL, and ends up labeled as dangerous and put to sleep. I suspect that, as time passes, my view is going to get a lot more balanced.


----------



## RCloud (Feb 25, 2011)

Canaqua said:


> Yeah, I'm curious about the circumstances too and how that would affect things. If both were off leash (and there's a leash law), both owners are equally at fault and small dog's owner should be more than satisifed with having the vet bill paid. If loose little dog ran up to leashed/under control big dog, little dog owner should suck it up and shut up, their fault and they should be fined or whatever the penalty is for a loose dog. If loose big dog attacked leashed/under control little dog, big dog owner should be trouble...whatever the penalty is for loose dog and vet bills.
> 
> I'm a bit sensitive to this as, while neither of my dogs are huge (50lbs and 60lbs) and they are not Pits or Pit mixes and automatically assumed to be "bad",*I d o encounter loose very small dogs rushing up to them, occasionally even attacking them when I have them on a leash. My dogs react, which is appropriate behavior for a dog, it's a DOG!* I've been able to step in between them and the little aggressor (one drew blood on my ACD mix), but I sometimes get an earful from tiny dog owners..."Your big dog is sooo mean, it's aggressive, you shouldn't have it out!". Ugh. My dogs are fine. Every dog has a limit to what they should be expected to put up with. IF I owned a tiny dog, I'd sure be a lot more careful with it and not expect every owner of a larger dog to disappear from the face of the earth so I could let my little unsocialized brat run loose. I am very careful with my dogs, they are leashed always around the neighborhood and, when we go to wooded areas off leash, I walk on the steep, rocky, trails deep in the woods where we're unlikely to come across toy dogs. AND, they have good recalls, I can get them back and leash them when I see someone coming who looks like they don't have control over their dog.
> 
> Unfortunately, larger dogs are often blamed for an altercation, regardless of circumstances, because the small dog is much more likely to be hurt. Double, triple that inclination to blame if the larger dog is a Pit or Pit mix.


Try having people attempt to beat the crap out of your *leashed dog* because they lashed out at a loose dog that charged them on a hiking trail.... I do have a Pit Bull, and that only seems to make people react that much more irrational, hostile, and violent, even if we're not the irresponsible ones.


----------



## MountainDogs (Sep 25, 2012)

RCloud said:


> I think the thing you need to remember though is that dogs ARE animals. A lot dogs and dog breeds have a very high prey drive, and don't understand that some small dog may in fact be someone's beloved family member.
> 
> If a dog ends up killing another dog, that's absolutely horrible, and I agree that the owner of that dog should take responsibility and pays the consequences, but why should the dog have to pay for behaving like a dog? Especially if it's never happened before.
> 
> I had a pet ferret years ago. I LOVED him with all my heart. We use to take him everywhere with us, including on walks in the woods. He walked on a leash and everything. One day, he was attacked by a loose Lab, and killed right in front of us. We had the opportunity to go after the owners (though didn't...he was dead and nothing was going to change that), but we didn't even DREAM about requesting the dog be put to sleep, because it wasn't the dog's fault. Is that comparing "apples to oranges" too?


Yep, once again you are comparing apples to oranges.
Ferrets are seen as a prey by most dogs. Especially by dogs that were never socialized with one.
And even in that case there are a lot of dogs that will absolutely adore their "own" ferret but not a "strange" ferret.

Taking a ferret for walks out in the woods where there might be loose dogs walking around is a risk someone willingly takes.
I personally do not believe dogs see small dogs as prey animal. I believe they know they are dogs too. That is my opinion only of course.
If my cat was roaming the streets and got killed by someone's dog, then that would be my fault. And not that person's fault!
But that is a whole different topic altogether.

Just last week I was told about a case where someone's Golden Retriever was attacked in its own backyard by two loose Pit Bulls that belonged to a neighbor (I know how very cliche, but it really happened). 
The Golden would have been dead, if his owner and the owner of the two APBT's didn't lay on him. 
The owner of the two APBT's got seriously bitten in his arms btw, but that is not surprising since the dogs were in the middle of a fight.
Turns out the two Pit Bulls broke through their own fence to get to that dog. Their owners have practically built a fort because of previous incidents (they were not people aggressive, just dog aggressive).
But the dogs still managed to get out and almost kill someone elses pet.

Once everything was settled down and all the dogs were safely confined, the wife of the man who got bitten by his own dogs, quickly went over to the neighbors to check on the Golden.
In her hurry, she didn't close the fence properly and the 2 dogs were lose on the street again. Luckily no one was hurt this time.


My point is, if a dog has hurt other dogs in the past and eventually manages to kill someone else's beloved pet, then what?
Should we wait until yet another dog gets seriously hurt or killed? Why?
Obviously the owners were not responsible enough or made mistakes even with the best intentions.
You can say, well they can be adopted out. Who is going to take them in?
Especially with so many dogs that have no history of killing other dogs, sitting in the animal shelter, waiting to be put down.

When a dog breaks loose to kill other dogs, then that is serious. 
I am obviously not talking about incidents that happen in a park where dogs are allowed to walk off leash.

I will stand by my previous point: these type of incidents rarely happen to responsible dog owners. It is mostly and mainly irresponsible owners whose dog ends up killing someone else's pet.
So as I said, I think it is not wrong for owners whose dog just got killed by a dog that has a history of hurting other dogs in the past, to ask for that dog to be put down.
If it turns out that it happened due to owner's negligence, I see nothing wrong with it what so ever. And the owners need to get a high fine, so they can be set as an example to others.

*Edit*
I want to make it perfectly clear again that I am only talking about dogs that broke loose and killed other dogs.

But this is seriously starting to get off topic and it is not helping the OP at all. So I will agree to disagree with you.


----------



## RCloud (Feb 25, 2011)

MountainDogs said:


> Taking a ferret for walks out in the woods where there might be loose dogs walking around is a risk someone willingly takes.
> I personally do not believe dogs see small dogs as prey animal.


Weather you choose to believe it or not, it's true. A lot of dogs will view smaller dogs as prey, some breeds more notorious/prone to it then others. Read up on "prey drive"on google. And just as ridiculous of an excuse it would be if it were applied to a small dog being killed in that situation, NO, it wasn't the "risk we took". The fact of the matter is, ALL dogs should be leashed and in control when out in public. It's not the dog that should be punished, it's the owner.


----------



## Canaqua (Sep 27, 2011)

RCloud said:


> Try having people attempt to beat the crap out of your *leashed dog* because they lashed out at a loose dog that charged them on a hiking trail.... I do have a Pit Bull, and that only seems to make people react that much more irrational, hostile, and violent, even if we're not the irresponsible ones.


Yeah, I walk an intact, male, Pit Bull for my neighbor, because he has COPD and can't walk far. This dog is a total sweetheart, but he's a purebred, very classic looking, old fashioned, Pit, and has all kinds of muscle. He's not very big, only 60 lbs. He never does anything at all when other dogs come up to him, but I never know when some dog might just be rude enough that it pisses him off. I keep him on a four foot leash, right by my leg, even though he has a fine recall, so I have a better chance of putting myself between him and any other, rude, dog. So far, not a single incident. Some people do cross the street or the path when they see us and several have asked me what kind of dog he is...because he is beautiful and very friendly. When I tell them he's a Pit, most peoples' faces cloud over and they end the conversation. Ugh. They don't know what they are missing out on, he's wonderful! But, if anything ever happened, he'd be blamed...not only a Pit Bull, but a Pit Bull who still has his balls. I like doing my neighbor favors and enjoy spending time with his dog, but I don't want to be responsible for him losing his dog, so I'm REALLY, REALLY conservative with him.


----------



## RCloud (Feb 25, 2011)

Canaqua said:


> Yeah, I walk an intact, male, Pit Bull for my neighbor, because he has COPD and can't walk far. This dog is a total sweetheart, but he's a purebred, very classic looking, old fashioned, Pit, and has all kinds of muscle. He's not very big, only 60 lbs. He never does anything at all when other dogs come up to him, but I never know when some dog might just be rude enough that it pisses him off. I keep him on a four foot leash, right by my leg, even though he has a fine recall, so I have a better chance of putting myself between him and any other, rude, dog. So far, not a single incident. Some people do cross the street or the path when they see us and several have asked me what kind of dog he is...because he is beautiful and very friendly. When I tell them he's a Pit, most peoples' faces cloud over and they end the conversation. Ugh. They don't know what they are missing out on, he's wonderful! But, if anything ever happened, he'd be blamed...not only a Pit Bull, but a Pit Bull who still has his balls. I like doing my neighbor favors and enjoy spending time with his dog, but I don't want to be responsible for him losing his dog, so I'm REALLY, REALLY conservative with him.


Our dog dislikes other dogs, but it's not an out of control, insane "I'm going to rip apart every dog that comes into my sight let me at em'!" kind of thing. We've learned over time that it's actually fear based, and can get ugly if the other dog just blindly charges, even if it's "friendly". She's got a lot more patience and tolerance with smaller dogs, but she's still going to react if one gets in her face, and more often then not, it's the small dogs and the owners that think it's okay to let them run amok that cause the problems, and it's always them that tend threaten her harm for not having control of their dogs. 

If everyone just kept their dogs leashed in public areas (you know, like the law says), issues like this wouldn't happen.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

MountainDogs said:


> My point is, if a dog has hurt other dogs in the past and eventually manages to kill someone else's beloved pet, then what?
> Should we wait until yet another dog gets seriously hurt or killed? Why?
> 
> So as I said, I think it is not wrong for owners whose dog just got killed by a dog that has a history of hurting other dogs in the past, to ask for that dog to be put down.


It's purely revenge, no other reason for killing the offending dog. Just end up with a lot more dead dogs. 

Dogs are dogs. Animals. They do animal things. Which aren't very nice sometimes. It's the owner's responsibility to manage situations so they don't turn ugly, but sometimes things still happen. It stinks but that's life.

And, no, it's not apple to oranges, because another dog is still an animal. Wolves sometimes kill other wolves. Bears sometimes kill other bears. It's no different than a dog killing a rabbit. It's just. . .the way things are in nature.


----------



## Canaqua (Sep 27, 2011)

RCloud said:


> Our dog dislikes other dogs, but it's not an out of control, insane "I'm going to rip apart every dog that comes into my sight let me at em'!" kind of thing. We've learned over time that it's actually fear based, and can get ugly if the other dog just blindly charges, even if it's "friendly". She's got a lot more patience and tolerance with smaller dogs, but she's still going to react if one gets in her face, and more often then not, it's the small dogs and the owners that think it's okay to let them run amok that cause the problems, and it's always them that tend threaten her harm for not having control of their dogs.
> 
> If everyone just kept their dogs leashed in public areas (you know, like the law says), issues like this wouldn't happen.


My Border Collie mix is like your dog...she's a good dog and has quite good doggie social skills, but she's timid. She feels threatened by dogs charging up to her without appropriate "greeting protocol" (she's FINE if they are polite and approach slowly with the right body language). She's actually more afraid of small dogs...a big Lab charging up to her isn't as scary as a Pom charging up to her, for some reason. Anyway, in my experience, small dogs are often "let off the hook" as far as training and socialization go, because their owners can get away with it. Not too many people call Animal Control because a 6lb Pom mix ran out and got aggressive with them. A larger dog, or "worse", a Pit...AC is on speed dial. I'm NOT saying every small dog owner is like this, because I know some responsible small dog owners, but too many are lax. Poorly socialized, untrained, small dog, charges big dog, big dog reacts in an appropriate manner...big dog owner gets in trouble. Argh!


----------



## Canaqua (Sep 27, 2011)

Oh, and lest anyone think I'm picking on Pomeranians, I'm not. One of my favorite toy dog breeds. They are smart and cute...with big personalities and lots of opinions. Because they are smart and confident, they need a "real" owner. But the "problem dogs" in my neighborhood are all these little, backyard bred, Pom/Poodle mixes with uneducated owners . They get very aggressive, barky and unpleasant when bored and untrained. Great dogs with an educated owner, NOT dogs for a casual owner, despite their tiny size. I have an ACD and a BC, I KNOW they are dogs who require a commitment...just because a Pom is tiny, doesn't mean it doesn't require a commitment too!


----------



## Roloni (Aug 5, 2011)

My neighbor has a Silverback Gorilla as a pet.. (or maybe its his wife...)
Im not sure!
so..
I avoid walking my Rottie past their house..!


----------



## Crantastic (Feb 3, 2010)

MountainDogs said:


> On top of that, you have to keep in mind that a dog that kills another dog is very, very difficult to rehabilitate. And in some cases impossible.


Untrue. This depends on context. A dog whose prey drive kicks in may normally be just fine with other dogs, while a dog-aggressive dog won't be. The latter is much harder to rehabilitate. The former doesn't require rehabilitation at all, just to be kept away from smaller animals that could trigger its prey drive.



> Combine that with the well known fact that dogs who get loose and kill other people's beloved pets are usually owned by irresponsible people,


Well known fact, hm? Do you have any links that back up this assertion?



> I personally do not believe dogs see small dogs as prey animal. I believe they know they are dogs too. That is my opinion only of course.


You are entitled to your opinion, but it's wrong. That's not my opinion; that's science.  You need to be careful about stating things like this as fact when they're just unfounded opinions.



> My point is, if a dog has hurt other dogs in the past and eventually manages to kill someone else's beloved pet, then what?
> Should we wait until yet another dog gets seriously hurt or killed? Why?
> 
> When a dog breaks loose to kill other dogs, then that is serious.
> I am obviously not talking about incidents that happen in a park where dogs are allowed to walk off leash.


Ah, now this is a different opinion from what it seemed you were saying in your first post. If a dog attacked and killed one of my dogs and I found out that it wasn't the first time, I might consider fighting for that dog to be euthed. I hate to see dogs die, but if I could stop this from happening to any other dogs in the future, I would. One instance of bad management is forgivable; two, not so much. It would still depend on context, though.

If we're discussing attacks where one dog is loose but the attack happens in an area where all dogs are supposed to be leashed, then the owner of the loose dog is at fault. I can think of very few instances where this wouldn't be true.

I am curious, though, about why you wouldn't consider, say, a chihuahua being killed by a husky in an off-leash dog park to be the same kind of deal. It's still a larger dog mistaking a smaller one for prey, which you believe can't happen.


----------



## Canaqua (Sep 27, 2011)

Wow...I had not seen that incident with the Husky killing the Chi. Yes, sounds like a "prey" situation to me. 

IMO, dog parks aren't for dogs, they are for humans...human convenience, socializing and entertainment. I really don't believe that most dogs find a dog park to be "fun", more like "stressful". 

My husband thinks I'm nuts, because I micromanage our dogs so much. I know where they are every minute they are out of the house and they are mere feet from my legs. There are so many damned fools out there with dogs and I don't want to lose one of mine to someone else's stupidity and lack of management. I'm old, 50 something, when I was young, everyone who had a dog understood dogs, or was at least forgiving of their "animal nature". Not the case any more, so mine get watched like hawks, trained, MANAGED aggressively...whatever it takes to keep them safe...not just from an attack by an unsocialized dog, but, because they are on the larger side, not being confiscated or euthanized because someone else's untrained/unsocialized dog managed to push their doggie buttons.


----------



## RCloud (Feb 25, 2011)

Roloni said:


> My neighbor has a Silverback Gorilla as a pet.. (or maybe its his wife...)
> Im not sure!
> so..
> I avoid walking my Rottie past their house..!


I lol'ed hard.


----------



## bonesygirl (Mar 2, 2012)

I wasn't around for the actual incident, but I know both dogs were leashed. The story as I understand is that the small dog came around the back of a car as my friend was walking by. She believes (and the behaviourist agrees) that it was a case of prey drive. My friend thinks her dog mistook the small dog for a squirrel or a rabbit because it happened so quickly. 

I know I'm biased in this case, because I love this dog as I do my own. I'm not sure how I would react if it my dog was the one being attacked. I like to think that in this case, given the lack of a history, and the fact that the other dog wasn't seriously wounded, I wouldn't be pushing for euth. But who can know for sure. 

My friend's dog is a rottie. Once she had a hold of the dog, the wife of the small dog's owner reached into her mouth and pulled her dog out. Apparently she remarked to my friend afterwards that she couldn't believe she wasn't bitten herself. 

I really am so heartsick over this. It all seems so unfair from where I'm sitting. My friend has done everything the court has asked her and then some. This dog really is a wonderful example of her breed. Beautiful girl, sweet as pie, never met anyone she couldn't charm the pants off. I know it's a hot button issue that comes up from time to time, but I can't help feeling like if she wasn't a rottie, things would be different. 

Thanks everyone for your advice. She goes to court tomorrow, so I'll keep everyone updated.


----------



## TorachiKatashi (Sep 29, 2010)

MountainDogs said:


> To me this is like comparing apples to oranges.
> For a lot of people (including me), dogs are like family members. So when someone elses dog gets loose and kills their beloved pet, that was like family to them. It is incredibly painful.
> Maybe the two of you wouldn't demand for the dog that just killed your pets to be put down, but most people would.
> And I understand why they would, as I would too.


You're absolutely right. Dogs are like family members. But if my four-year-old cousin went to preschool tomorrow and another four-year-old knocked her in the head with a toy and killed her, I'd be devastated, but I wouldn't call for them to _kill_ the other child. That'd be nuts, and everyone would say I was nuts for even thinking it.

Alternatively, if it was my cousin who killed another child, I'd be pretty disgusted and appalled if the other family tried to tell us we should kill her. And they'd have to get to her over my cold dead body to ever try it.

It's pretty easy to throw blame around when you're not on the short end of the stick.



bonesygirl said:


> I wasn't around for the actual incident, but I know both dogs were leashed. The story as I understand is that the small dog came around the back of a car as my friend was walking by. She believes (and the behaviourist agrees) that it was a case of prey drive. My friend thinks her dog mistook the small dog for a squirrel or a rabbit because it happened so quickly.


Sounds like this guy and his dog basically snuck up on your friend's dog. I know that if a little creature suddenly appeared under Bear's legs out of nowhere, he'd snap out of self-defense before he even had a chance to look and see what it was. Even most people would instinctively give it a kick whether they intended to or not.


----------



## MountainDogs (Sep 25, 2012)

RCloud said:


> Weather you choose to believe it or not, it's true. A lot of dogs will view smaller dogs as prey, some breeds more notorious/prone to it then others. Read up on "prey drive"on google. And just as ridiculous of an excuse it would be if it were applied to a small dog being killed in that situation, NO, it wasn't the "risk we took". The fact of the matter is, ALL dogs should be leashed and in control when out in public. It's not the dog that should be punished, it's the owner.


Why are you and others forcing this theory on me as if it is a proven fact?
For now it is just a theory that some dog behaviorists believe in. And some do not.

I personally chose not to believe in it and that is my prerogative. 
Some dogs don't like small dogs and some dogs don't like big dogs, black dogs, fluffy dogs etc for whatever reason.
But I believe that dogs know those are still all dogs. And I also believe dogs are far more intelligent than you seem to think.
Maybe you are the one who should do some more reading?

I agree that all dogs should be leashed and in control when in public, unless of course these dogs are in an "off leash area".
That is what I have been saying from my first post in this topic.
Where I live only in state parks the dogs are supposed to be on the leash, in regular woods they are not. 
So hypothetically speaking if someone would walk a ferret on a leash out in the woods here, there is always a chance they might stumble into a loose dog.
There are also bears and cougars in the woods here and we know that. So it is the risk we take every time we enter these woods. 

By the way, our dogs are always on the leash and we always avoid off leash areas.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

MountainDogs said:


> Why are you and others forcing this theory on me as if it is a proven fact?


Choosing to believe it's pretty good phrasing, since it flies in the face of everything we know about dog behavior and psychology, as well as easy observation of dogs.

I have small dogs. They're terriers. They're not dog or cat aggressive, but you can bet your butt when they see something go scurrying by rapidly, or hear high pitched squeaking/screaming, they respond. The difference in that stimulus and response and what triggers an aggressive response in a dog aggressive dog, and what that behavior looks like is night and day.

Frankly, you'd have to close your eyes, shove your fingers in your ears and loudly sing to yourself to be able to mistake the two.

For one thing there's no hackles rising, no lip baring, no stiffness, no staring, no growling, no posturing, no attempt at anything like a FIGHT - there's nothing aggressive in the dog's body language, vocalization or demeanor, period. There's outright delight, even. PLAYFUL, loose, relaxed body language, wiggly tail, open mouthed, usually no vocalization but if there is, it's high pitched, excited, playful yipping and bouncing and pouncing around. The action isn't a fight or a tusel. It's an instant chase, pounce, and bite. Just like if that tiny dog was a mouse.

Honestly, I don't see how you can miss the differences.

And FYI, areas vary greatly. My dogs are frequently off leash in off leash areas (which are plentiful), and they're controlled enough to be called off rabbits, chicken, and squirrels. But you can bet your butt when they see a mouse in the back yard or under their they pounce and are on it, and dismember it first and ask questions later. Likewise, when Kylie weighed less than 2lbs, Jack wanted to 'play' with her. And by play with, I mean initially wanted to eat her for dinner. He expressed this by bouncing, whining excitedly, wiggling his whole rear end. You could just tell by the intensity that he was seriously worked up - he looked and acted like a border collie who was having a ball waved under its nose. He got over it when we controlled that instant response, introduced him and let him smell and see her, but from a distance? She was a small fluffy animal that could be prey. There were no chasing or running games until she was quite a bit older. Not because he was intolerant, would growl or snap (not once) or resented her (he didn't), but because - he's a *Rat Terrier*, and his ancestors both killed rodents and ran down JACK RABBITS in the west. And when she ran, that kicked in and she was just - a small, fuzzy, quickly and erratically moving thing that squeaked. 

(Seriously. Not aggression. Prey drive looks like nothing like any sort of aggression. I have no clue which of the two you have never seen, but it's one or the other. It's the only explanation I have for your 'choosing to believe' dog's are incapable of directing prey-drive onto other dogs. )


----------



## gingerkid (Jul 11, 2012)

MountainDogs said:


> Why are you and others forcing this theory on me as if it is a proven fact?
> For now it is just a theory that some dog behaviorists believe in. And some do not.
> 
> I personally chose not to believe in it and that is my prerogative.


You can choose to believe whatever you want, that doesn't make it true. 

May the Flying Spaghetti Monster bless you so that you can walk the path of scientific evidence.


----------



## MountainDogs (Sep 25, 2012)

Willowy said:


> It's purely revenge, no other reason for killing the offending dog. Just end up with a lot more dead dogs.
> 
> Dogs are dogs. Animals. They do animal things. Which aren't very nice sometimes. It's the owner's responsibility to manage situations so they don't turn ugly, but sometimes things still happen. It stinks but that's life.
> 
> And, no, it's not apple to oranges, because another dog is still an animal. Wolves sometimes kill other wolves. Bears sometimes kill other bears. It's no different than a dog killing a rabbit. It's just. . .the way things are in nature.



It is pure revenge to you, but maybe you should be more open minded?
Some people would say they are preventing another tragedy.
I feel the same way. If the owner is irresponsible and the dog has harmed and attacked other dogs in the past, before finally killing one...
Then yes the judge should consider to probably put down that dog.
Because who is going to fully rehabilitate that dog, why would the irresponsible owner start being responsible now?
And what if it happens again? What if once again someone's beloved pet gets teared apart?

What you are describing is what happens in nature. Dogs are domesticated, they live with humans.
That is not nature.
In fact in a lot of countries dogs are seen as possession under the law. It is true and you can google that. So again: that is not nature.
But anyway, just because a dog is an animal, it doesn't means it can go around, hurting or even killing other dogs.
If you read about these cases, usually it turns out that the owners were very irresponsible. 
Something serious needs to be done about it. Higher fines for the owners etc.

I absolutely adore dogs, they are not just pets in my eyes. Which is why I feel it is very important to urge people to be cautious & responsible and not allow their dogs to harm other dogs.


----------



## MountainDogs (Sep 25, 2012)

gingerkid said:


> You can choose to believe whatever you want, that doesn't make it true.
> 
> May the Flying Spaghetti Monster bless you so that you can walk the path of scientific evidence.


 
The pot calling the kettle black I see.
Just because you believe it doesn't makes it true either.


----------



## MountainDogs (Sep 25, 2012)

CptJack said:


> Choosing to believe it's pretty good phrasing, since it flies in the face of everything we know about dog behavior and psychology, as well as easy observation of dogs.
> 
> I have small dogs. They're terriers. They're not dog or cat aggressive, but you can bet your butt when they see something go scurrying by rapidly, or hear high pitched squeaking/screaming, they respond. The difference in that stimulus and response and what triggers an aggressive response in a dog aggressive dog, and what that behavior looks like is night and day.
> 
> ...



That is your take on why some dogs want to kill smaller dogs.
It is not mine.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

> I feel the same way. If the owner is irresponsible and the dog has harmed and attacked other dogs in the past, before finally killing one...


...But I think most of us (all of us, actually, from what I've read, that specified) said that once the owner had proven they're not going to make changes necessary for the safety of others, it was different. But that a first time attack is a different thing and the owners should be allowed the opportunity to manage the situation. One strike and you're out is just overkill. For me, anyway.

And honestly, you can domesticate dogs until the end of time: They're animals. They are driven by instinct. I agree it's our responsibility to manage that, as did everyone else, but that isn't going to make them bend to human morality.



MountainDogs said:


> That is your take on why some dogs want to kill smaller dogs.
> It is not mine.


No. That's research, scientific evidence, and the outcome of scientific method.

Your hypothesis is what you choose to believe. 

Big difference.

Do the research. Do the reading. Stop insisting that your desire to believe it counts as research. It's out there. It's all over. I can't link to it because I'm mobile, but I'm sure you're capable of finding it/using google. If you're not, I'll get busy and start linking when I wake up in the morning. I'm sure I can get you quite a list.

But again: you can **choose** to believe in whatever you want. that won't make your belief anything but disproven and WRONG, mind you. I can choose not to believe in gravity, but - there's still gravity. (Which, by the way, is also 'just a theory'. That's the way science works. - and this bit I have available, because this discussion happens a lot, and I don't need to past links! Because I have it in email).



> Fact: In science, an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as “true.” Truth in science, however, is never final and what is accepted as a fact today may be modified or even discarded tomorrow.
> Hypothesis: A tentative statement about the natural world leading to deductions that can be tested. If the deductions are verified, the hypothesis is provisionally corroborated. If the deductions are incorrect, the original hypothesis is proved false and must be abandoned or modified. Hypotheses can be used to build more complex inferences and explanations.
> Law: A descriptive generalization about how some aspect of the natural world behaves under stated circumstances.
> Theory: In science, a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses.


----------



## RCloud (Feb 25, 2011)

MountainDogs said:


> Why are you and others forcing this theory on me as if it is a proven fact?
> For now it is just a theory that some dog behaviorists believe in. And some do not.
> 
> I personally chose not to believe in it and that is my prerogative.


It's not a theory, it's a scientific fact. It is your prerogative to believe as you wish. But in this case, you're _wrong._


----------



## gingerkid (Jul 11, 2012)

MountainDogs said:


> What you are describing is what happens in nature. Dogs are domesticated, they live with humans.
> That is not nature.
> In fact in a lot of countries dogs are seen as possession under the law. It is true and you can google that. So again: that is not nature.


All animals that live on crown land in Canada and the UK (and presumably other Commonwealth countries, but I'm not sure) belong to the Queen. So.... I guess the coyotes that she owns eating rabbits and squirrels that she also owns isn't nature either.

You are absolutely right, people should not allow their dogs to harm other dogs - but it is nearly 100% of the time *not the dog's fault*. Which is what everyone here is trying to say. And courts can absolutely require people to give up ownership of their pets if the courts feel the pet is not being treated or managed appropriately - that does NOT mean it has to be a death sentence for the dog.

ETA: This pot has scientific evidence to back up what I support. I try not to hold too many "beliefs" as they're far more difficult to change than ideas.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

gingerkid said:


> I try not to hold too many "beliefs" as they're far more difficult to change than ideas.


I love this statement. That's all I'm saying as it's off topic, but <3.


----------



## MountainDogs (Sep 25, 2012)

Crantastic said:


> Untrue. This depends on context. A dog whose prey drive kicks in may normally be just fine with other dogs, while a dog-aggressive dog won't be. The latter is much harder to rehabilitate. The former doesn't require rehabilitation at all, just to be kept away from smaller animals that could trigger its prey drive.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



_Untrue. This depends on context. A dog whose prey drive kicks in may normally be just fine with other dogs, while a dog-aggressive dog won't be. The latter is much harder to rehabilitate. The former doesn't require rehabilitation at all, just to be kept away from smaller animals that could trigger its prey drive._

Untrue? Well that is your opinion and you can sit here and try to force your opinion on me but it will not work.
You should just accept that we will not agree on this matter.
So there is no reason to go back and forth.

_Well known fact, hm? Do you have any links that back up this assertion?_

Do you have any links that can prove I am not right then?
I stand by what I said: dogs that get loose or are let loose and end up killing someone's dog are usually owned by irresponsible people.

_You are entitled to your opinion, but it's wrong. That's not my opinion; that's science. You need to be careful about stating things like this as fact when they're just unfounded opinions.
_

Science you say? It is just a theory that a lot of dog behaviorist believe in.
I do not, but not because I think I know better, but because that is what I have observed over the years, so I have my own theories.
I believe dogs know that the small dogs are still dogs. Why some bigger dogs try to kill small dogs then?
Well that will depend on the dog in question.
And if you read my post better you would have seen that I claim this is my opinion, not a proven fact. Maybe you should read better next time.

As for that topic "Chihuahua killed by Husky at dog park yesterday.."
What I read there, the husky was picking on/snapping at every dog in the park and then it killed the chihuahua.
Do I think that husky thought the chihuahua was some kind of a rabbit? No I do not.
But I will not further comment on the reason why it happened, since I wasn't there.

Do I think that Husky should be put down? Probably not.
Here is why....I think that every time a dog is taken to off leash parks, that there is always a chance a fight might occur.
So I avoid all off leash areas....I don't like them and I don't want to risk my dogs ending up in a fight with another dog. These parks are a recipe for disaster IMHO (stands for in my humble opinion)
Which is completely different from when someone walks their dog on the leash when all of a sudden another dogs charges and tries to kill their dog.
Not comparable IMO.


----------



## MountainDogs (Sep 25, 2012)

gingerkid said:


> All animals that live on crown land in Canada and the UK (and presumably other Commonwealth countries, but I'm not sure) belong to the Queen. So.... I guess the coyotes that she owns eating rabbits and squirrels that she also owns isn't nature either.
> 
> You are absolutely right, people should not allow their dogs to harm other dogs - but it is nearly 100% of the time *not the dog's fault*. Which is what everyone here is trying to say. And courts can absolutely require people to give up ownership of their pets if the courts feel the pet is not being treated or managed appropriately - that does NOT mean it has to be a death sentence for the dog.
> 
> ETA: This pot has scientific evidence to back up what I support. I try not to hold too many "beliefs" as they're far more difficult to change than ideas.



See I never claimed it is the dog's fault. Ever.
Of course it is the owner's fault.
What I am saying is: a dog that has killed other dogs before (or even just hurt them severely), is (in my eyes at least) a danger to other dogs.
And as I was saying: who is going to rehabilitate that dog? Who is going to make sure it never happens again?
To me the most important thing is to make sure it does not happen again.

And I am not even going to comment on your silly comparison with the Queen...
The way most humans live on earth nowadays have very little to do with nature.


----------



## Canyx (Jul 1, 2011)

I think a dog that has hurt or killed another dog (provided it was an accident and a first offense) should have two options:
1. The owner takes full responsibility to prevent it from happening again.
2. The dog is placed in a household that is capable of preventing such a thing from happening again.
If both of the two are impossible, I do think the dog should be put down at risk of other dogs, people, or other animals being hurt in the future.

The dog in question has not killed the other dog; the owner of the attacking dog took full responsibility and is willing to take measures to prevent this from happening again.
I don't see what the argument is?


----------



## MountainDogs (Sep 25, 2012)

RCloud said:


> It's not a theory, it's a scientific fact. It is your prerogative to believe as you wish. But in this case, you're _wrong._



Humans need oxygen to live, that is a scientific fact.
Saying dogs see smaller dogs as prey and that is why they want to kill them is not a scientific fact. Maybe you should google "How is something proven scientifically" before you say stuff like that.
You saying I am wrong is again your opinion not a fact.


----------



## RCloud (Feb 25, 2011)

MountainDogs said:


> Do you have any links that can prove I am not right then?
> I stand by what I said: dogs that get loose or are let loose and end up killing someone's dog are usually owned by irresponsible people.


You do realize accidents can happen to even the most responsible, dedicated owner, right?


----------



## MountainDogs (Sep 25, 2012)

CptJack said:


> No. That's research, scientific evidence, and the outcome of scientific method.
> 
> Your hypothesis is what you choose to believe.
> 
> ...


What makes you think I have not done my research?
Do you understand that I am free to base my opinion the way I chose? And that I am not forcing my opinion on you or others?
I am merely saying I feel differently.
Unlike you... you keep trying to change my opinion.
And it seems just like RCloud you don't understand the difference between a scientific fact and a theory.

So I will say to you what I said to him: *Humans need oxygen to live, that is a scientific fact.
Saying dogs see smaller dogs as prey and that is why they want to kill them is not a scientific fact. Maybe you should google "How is something proven scientifically" before you say stuff like that.
You saying I am wrong is again your opinion not a fact. *


----------



## MountainDogs (Sep 25, 2012)

RCloud said:


> You do realize accidents can happen to even the most responsible, dedicated owner, right?


Of course, which is why I don't say *they are always owned by irresponsible people*, I say usually.


----------



## gingerkid (Jul 11, 2012)

MountainDogs said:


> See I never claimed it is the dog's fault. Ever.
> Of course it is the owner's fault.
> What I am saying is: a dog that has killed other dogs before (or even just hurt them severely), is (in my eyes at least) a danger to other dogs.
> And as I was saying: who is going to rehabilitate that dog? Who is going to make sure it never happens again?
> ...


You may think it was silly, but you stated: Animals are consider possessions, that is not nature. The coyotes on crown land are possessions, and therefore by your own statement, not nature. So while it may be "silly" to you, to some of us, it is a logical argument based on a statement that was made.

When a kid is beaten and taken into custody, who makes sure it doesn't happen again? Typically the judicial system. When someone is convicted of dangerous/drunk driving, who makes sure it doesn't happen again? The judicial system. I'm sure you can see where this is going. The court does have the authority to force owners to surrender their dog. If there is no other available option, then yes, euthanasia tends to be the outcome. However, a dog killing another dog without any prior attacks, or any history of aggression (since those were never mentioned in your original post, hence this whole thing), should not be euthanized as a first course of action. 

You can believe differently if you want (and clearly you do), and I'm sure others do, but that doesn't make the specific reasoning behind it any more logical or humane.

ETA: As a scientist... Science can't _prove_ anything. As an example... you'd take it as fact that rats are born with tails. But unless you can find every rat ever born has been born with a tail, you cannot PROVE that it is irrefutably true - since any rat born without a tail inherently refutes the statement "rats are born with tails".

Oh, and just for fun... scientists consider evolution a fact.


----------



## RCloud (Feb 25, 2011)

MountainDogs said:


> Humans need oxygen to live, that is a scientific fact.
> Saying dogs see smaller dogs as prey and that is why they want to kill them is not a scientific fact. Maybe you should google "How is something proven scientifically" before you say stuff like that.
> You saying I am wrong is again your opinion not a fact.


 Cool story, bro.


----------



## MountainDogs (Sep 25, 2012)

gingerkid said:


> You may think it was silly, but you stated: Animals are consider possessions, that is not nature. The coyotes on crown land are possessions, and therefore by your own statement, not nature. So while it may be "silly" to you, to some of us, it is a logical argument based on a statement that was made.
> 
> When a kid is beaten and taken into custody, who makes sure it doesn't happen again? Typically the judicial system. When someone is convicted of dangerous/drunk driving, who makes sure it doesn't happen again? The judicial system. I'm sure you can see where this is going. The court does have the authority to force owners to surrender their dog. If there is no other available option, then yes, euthanasia tends to be the outcome. However, a dog killing another dog without any prior attacks, or any history of aggression (since those were never mentioned in your original post, hence this whole thing), should not be euthanized as a first course of action.
> 
> You can believe differently if you want (and clearly you do), and I'm sure others do, but that doesn't make the reasoning behind it any more sound or humane.


I said dogs in some countries are considered as possessions of their owners under the law.
So yes, how is that comparable to how things work in nature? Most humans do not live in nature and neither do their dogs.
Basically my point it: dogs are animals, but it is up to the their owner keep them under control. And not try to dismiss it as: dogs will be dogs.

As far as for your other point: yes those things were never mentioned in my original post. 
But I thought it was obvious (I guess it wasn't) that I was talking about dogs with history of aggression, owned by irresponsible owners.


----------



## RCloud (Feb 25, 2011)

MountainDogs said:


> Of course, which is why I don't say *they are always owned by irresponsible people*, I say usually.


Is that a fact or a theory?


----------



## Canyx (Jul 1, 2011)

I think you hit the root of the issue here (my opinions in bold):


MountainDogs said:


> See I never claimed it is the dog's fault. Ever. Of course it is the owner's fault.
> *Agree.*
> What I am saying is: a dog that has killed other dogs before (or even just hurt them severely), is (in my eyes at least) a danger to other dogs.
> *Agree.*
> ...


Now everyone's just dancing in circles. I'm inclined to agree with what everyone else has said about dogs and prey drive vs dogs and dog aggression, but that should not take precedence to your second statement in the above quote. And your third statement, which is why the dog in question should live.


----------



## MountainDogs (Sep 25, 2012)

Canyx said:


> I think you hit the root of the issue here (my opinions in bold):
> 
> 
> Now everyone's just dancing in circles. I'm inclined to agree with what everyone else has said about dogs and prey drive vs dogs and dog aggression, but that should not take precedence to your second statement in the above quote. And your third statement, which is why the dog in question should live.


Canyx my posts were not about the dog from OP's story.
I am sorry if you thought that was the case. My posts came as a response to RCloud's and Willowy's posts.
Where they said (and I quote): *Willowy: I don't think any animal should be killed for hurting/killing another animal. I mean, that's just crazy. Should I kill my cat for eating a mouse, kill my dog for killing a rabbit?
RCloud: I'm glad I'm not the only one that sees this logic. *

I honestly hope the dog that belongs to OP's friend will not be put down. The other dog did not die and obviously she is going to do everything in her power to prevent any further incidents.

I wasn't trying to argue with anyone here. 
My point is and always has been: irresponsible owners (that are found guilty by the court) need to be severely fined and dogs with history of aggression that kill other dogs should be euthanized if there is no other way to make sure they will never kill another dog again.


----------



## Canyx (Jul 1, 2011)

Ah, thanks for the clarification! I got lost in the intricacies of this thread.
I do agree with Willowy in that statement, though of course it depends on the responsibility of the owner, management, repeat offense, etc. I still think broad statements are being countered by equally broad statements. But alright, I'll just sit back and enjoy. Argue away!


----------



## Crantastic (Feb 3, 2010)

MountainDogs said:


> Do you have any links that can prove I am not right then?
> I stand by what I said: dogs that get loose or are let loose and end up killing someone's dog are usually owned by irresponsible people.


Your logical fallacy is: Burden of Proof.



> The burden of proof lies with someone who is making a claim, and is not upon anyone else to disprove. The inability, or disinclination, to disprove a claim does not render that claim valid, nor give it any credence whatsoever.


If you are going to claim that something is a well-known fact, it's up to YOU to prove it, if questioned.



> Science you say? It is just a theory that a lot of dog behaviorist believe in.


What I meant to discuss was not the imprecise term "prey drive" (sorry about that, should have clarified), but predatory drift -- the idea that a dog will be triggered to suddenly think of another dog as prey when normally it might get along just fine with that dog. No, it is not a "scientific term" in the strict sense of the word... but as the author of this well-researched comment about the issue points out, "domestic dogs have received extremely little attention from ethologists, in the past." A lot of things that respected behaviorists/leaders in the field like Dr. Ian Dunbar and Jean Donaldson consider to be true are not strictly scientifically proven -- including many things that you and I probably believe. They still have much more validity than any layperson's personal opinion. These behaviorists have dealt with many dogs during their careers and have been able to observe certain behaviors more times than scientists would in a controlled study.

This article by Donaldson is good:



> I think this is an example of what Dr. Ian Dunbar has coined "predatory drift". It worth summarizing what predation is before examining predatory drift.
> 
> Although often lumped under the banner "aggression", predation is food acquisition rather than agnostic (fisticuffs within a species) or defensive behaviour, although some of the behaviours in the canine predatory sequence - most notably biting - share some topography with aggression. Predatory behaviour needs careful attention because the results are more often extremely damaging than the results of routine defence and competition.
> 
> ...


Donaldson has this DVD about prey drive and predatory drift, as well.

If you can find links to any respected/credentialed behaviorists that refute the idea of predatory drift, I would be interested in reading them. I always like to learn as much as I can about dog-related topics.


----------



## luv2byte (Oct 21, 2009)

How did it go?


----------



## RCloud (Feb 25, 2011)

I'd like to know as well.


----------



## bonesygirl (Mar 2, 2012)

Sorry guys, stuck at work! 

So, court date was yesterday. Sentencing is delayed by ten days. 

My friend has a stack of reference letters from people who know the dog, her vet, trainer, chiropractor, behavourist, all absolutely glowing. She was getting disheartened because the prosecutor kept telling her the letters were garbage and didn't mean anything. But yesterday, the judge got wind of it and would like to take the ten days to review all the letters and relevant. My friend is very hopeful, everyone helping her has told her this is very good news, and the judge is apparently the best one she could have hoped for. 

It's good news, but this whole situation has really changed my friend. Rotties are her heart breed, but she said today that she doesn't think she could ever own one again, just because of all the baggage that comes with them. It's so unfortunate, because she is really the exact kind of owner a rottweiler blossoms with. 

Anyways, keeping my fingers crossed and thanks everyone for the advice!


----------



## RCloud (Feb 25, 2011)

bonesygirl said:


> Sentencing is delayed by ten days.


That would drive me _insane,_ but the fact that the judge is going to take his time and really read through all the letters and hear her out is a very positive thing. 

Please keep us posted on the outcome!


----------



## hanksimon (Mar 18, 2009)

One thing that I think is cool that I've seen with a few large, socialized Pits and Rotties is that they don't make the first move, but don't back when approached by [fear-] aggressive dogs, giving the owner of the aggressor time to recall. I was lucky to be on that side of the issue with my [previous] unsocialized dog, who went after a Rott. The Rott just kind of pushed him aside... rather than eating him.

I wonder if the original incident of this post was precipitated by the smaller dog growling and barking at the larger dog, pestering it enough for action. I know some small dogs can be so yappy that people tend to tune it out. It would be interesting for the OP to investigate inobtrusively, to see if the Rottie was merely 'defending' itself. [It's like: if I get in the face of a 300 lb linebacker and he shoves me into a wall, he's the one that gets into trouble even though I'm the instigator.]

@RCloud: [off-topic] We've socialized a lot of dogs that are low-grade fear "aggressive" like your dog. If you're interested, it takes about 6 mos, and it's fairly straightforward. The most difficult issue is finding an appropriately 'street-smart' well-socialized dog to help. Start a new thread if interested.

@Canaqua: I agree with the big dog/small dog issue. Not just poms, but I think that many people with small dogs don't socialize with large dogs, so the small dogs never learn the appropriate social gestures and Calming Signals. Just as some dog that are raised with cats will get along with other cats, I think that some small dgos raised with large dogs learn the social graces to get along with other large dogs. On the other hand, my brother's JRT was raised with large dogs, but will still nip the nose of nearly every new dog he meets...

@CptJack: My sweet, gentle Lab-GSD mix will stalk squirrels and rabbits with the intent of killing them [stopping just short of eating them] He looks more like a lion than what you've described as a terrier. On the other hand, he will chase cats and small runnig dogs, I guess with the intent of play, b/c when he catches up, he isn't aggressive [although he may be scary], he simply tries to get them to start running again. He doesn't bother a rabbit being held, or a small dog coming towards him. He will bark at a stationary cat, but not 'chase' it, but he'll even stalk and 'chase' a dead squirrel in the street, ignoring it once he sees that it is dead. I've never catagorized further, just cautious.


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

> I wonder if the original incident of this post was precipitated by the smaller dog growling and barking at the larger dog, pestering it enough for action. I know some small dogs can be so yappy that people tend to tune it out. It would be interesting for the OP to investigate inobtrusively, to see if the Rottie was merely 'defending' itself. [It's like: if I get in the face of a 300 lb linebacker and he shoves me into a wall, he's the one that gets into trouble even though I'm the instigator.


I think you're inferring a lot about both dogs in this case and both rotts and small dogs in general. I see no reason to think it was anything but a prey drive response from the rott.


----------



## hanksimon (Mar 18, 2009)

Agreed, but my rationale, in this specific topic, is not to state general behavioral fact, but to tilt in favor of the Rottie to save it from being euthed.


----------



## RCloud (Feb 25, 2011)

hanksimon said:


> @RCloud: [off-topic] We've socialized a lot of dogs that are low-grade fear "aggressive" like your dog. If you're interested, it takes about 6 mos, and it's fairly straightforward. The most difficult issue is finding an appropriately 'street-smart' well-socialized dog to help. Start a new thread if interested.


At this point in her life, I don't think it's going to make much difference. We worked with her a _lot_ over the course of time, and she's not a danger unless someone else is dumb enough to let their dog approach us. A lot of it may just simply be because she's old and crotchety. Kind of like the ill-tempered old lady that isn't afraid to give the neighborhood kids a butt whoopin' for not staying off her lawn XD A lot of it may be because she herself was a street dog in a big city at one point (my husband originally found her as a stray in Nashville), and she's spent a majority of her life defending herself from other strays. It may be a combination of those two things, though one thing I can say for certain is that she never got really "mean" until after the incident at the dog park where she was grabbed by a Lab, and dragged through the mud by her neck. She had never really had any real interest in interacting with other dogs, but she was a lot more tolerable of them approaching prior to that. 

In anycase, she never goes looking for trouble.


----------



## MountainDogs (Sep 25, 2012)

@ Crantastic, I have read your question, but I have not been able to answer earlier because I knew it would take me a while to write everything down.
And I didn't have time to do so until today.

Before I answer your questions, I want to make something crystal clear: *this is not a "I am right and you are wrong" type of post. Nor do I expect anyone to agree with me*. I am simply going to explain why I believe even large dogs know that small running dogs *are still dogs* when an incident happens.
And I want to apologize to the mods for placing so many links, but the posters from this forum want me to prove my case.

First you told me that I was wrong for saying that dogs that get loose or are let loose and end up seriously injuring and even killing someone's dog are usually owned by irresponsible people.
And that I should prove that somehow. 
Well then maybe you should read these statistics and police/news reports about both dogs and humans being attacked by other dogs:

http://www.seeingeye.org/images/2011_Seeing_Eye_Survey.txt

http://www.mothersagainstdogchaining.org/attacks.html

http://www.btoellner.typepad.com/kcdogblog/

If you read all that carefully, you will notice a pattern. In most cases the owners of the dog that has hurt other dogs or people have been irresponsible and/or neglectful. 


Now about the Predatory drift theory and how supposedly a dog suddenly thinks of another dog as a prey... 
According to Jean Donaldson one animal becomes a “predator,” and one becomes “prey". Although I may agree with a lot of other theories proposed by dr. Ian Dunbar and Jean Donaldson, with this theory I do not agree.
Yes it is just a theory (even though some of you on this topic tried telling me that it was a scientific fact, which it is not).
Sophia Yin, DVM, MS says here http://drsophiayin.com/blog/entry/can-big-and-little-dogs-play-at-the-dog-park-safely 
(and I quote): "However, the idea that large and small dogs cannot play well together is untrue. And there is no scientific term for dog behavior called predatory drift. Big dogs and small dogs can play together on a regular basis, and big dogs are not destined to become predatory to little dogs."

Even in Jean Donaldson's DVD "Predation in Family Dog", she is carefully to note that predatory drift is not a sanctioned term and that the underlying phenomenon has not been studied and reported on in a scientific fashion.

Now then, I will further explain why I do not believe for this theory to be true when it comes to dog-dog interactions.


Let us look at dog's senses.
According to http://www.dummies.com/how-to/content/understanding-a-dogs-sense-of-smell.html
_The percentage of the dog's brain that is devoted to analyzing smells is actually 40 times larger than that of a human. _
And according to http://www.dogbreedinfo.com/articles/dogsenses.htm
_A human has about 5 million scent glands, compared to a dog, who has anywhere from 125 million to 300 million (depending on the breed).
Dogs primarily communicate by smelling, seeing and lastly hearing. Dogs can see best at dusk and dawn. Their low-light vision is much better than a human’s, but their overall vision is not better. While a human’s vision is considered perfect at 20/20, a dog's vision is on average 20/75._

You can also further read about dog's vision on here: http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/canine-corner/201009/how-good-is-dog-s-visual-acuity-compared-people



To think that a large dog looks at a small fluffy dog and think of it as a squirrel or a rabbit is to look at dogs from human's point of view and ignore dog's extremely well developed sense of smell.
Dogs "know" other dogs by their scents. Just as dogs know we are not dogs, they know other dogs are dogs.

This article further demonstrates how complex dog's sense of smell is: http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21128262.000-crittervision-what-a-dogs-nose-knows.html 

(I quote): "In this way, smell might give a dog a way of understanding the passage of time, Horowitz suggests. A dog can perhaps perceive the past by smelling that a dog urinated here long enough ago that the scent has changed in character and become weaker. One recent study, from 2005, showed that dogs may even be able to detect the subtle differences in odour from one footstep to the next as they follow a human's scent trail (Chemical Senses, vol 30, p 291). The dog could imagine the future by picking up the scent of the dogs, humans or other objects coming towards them on the breeze."


There are so many variables that need to be taken into account when someone tries to explain why a dog fight has occurred. Just because a dog gets (as described by some dog behaviorists and some people on this forum) "predatory" with a little dog doesn't means he didn't know it was a dog
One would need to look at the background of each case; know much more about each animal, circumstances and history that both dogs share or do not share, ages, medical history (a dog in pain will often act out), how well each have been socialized and how much (positive) experiences they have had with both small dogs and big dogs.
One can only look at each case as individual.
Dogs read body signals that are subtle and sometimes difficult to see unless you can watch it in slow motion.
After all, Turid Rugaas developed her training technique after studying and observing dogs carefully. Recording their behavior on video and in photographs.

Some people say that some (but certainly not all) dogs will attack another dog when it behaves in a way that is not "normal" for a dog.
Here is an example of a case that involved a younger dog attacking and seriously injuring the older dog she was living with, when the older dog went into a seizure: http://animalbehaviorassociates.com/blog/do-the-young-naturally-try-to-kill-the-old-and-sick/
And I quote: _"So why did the younger dog attack when the older dog had a seizure? We aren’t sure. One hypothesis is that during the seizure the older dog looked, acted, sounded and probably smelled different than she normally did and the younger dog was reacting to that strange behavior. Some dogs seem to become aggressively aroused when exposed to unusual behavior by people or other animals."_

This also explains why so many dogs will attack another dog when that dog is in pain.

There have been similar cases of dogs seriously injuring their owners who were having seizures too: http://www.wtsp.com/news/article/265266/250/Dog-attacks-woman-suffering-seizure
Should we say that the dog in case "forgot" that was his owner and saw it as a "prey" all of a sudden? Of course not.

Female dogs have also been known to kill their own puppies if they perceive that the puppy is sick somehow (but also for other reasons): http://www.ehow.com/facts_6815874_do-female-dogs-kill-puppies_.html

And then again, some dogs are simply opportunistic bullies and will set their sights on "weak, vulnerable", often much smaller dogs. Also, it is important to keep in mind that some toy breeds are so small that they can get seriously injured within seconds by larger dogs even through a complete accidents. 
There are a lot of owners of retired race dogs that say their dogs will "prey" on smaller dogs. But I would like to ask here: do they realize just how little (and often not at all) race dogs have been exposed to small dogs while growing up?

I would also like to point out again why dog parks can be a very bad idea, these 2 articles explain it very well: http://shibashake.com/dog/enclosed-dog-parks-good-or-bad

http://shibashake.hubpages.com/hub/How-to-Deal-With-Dog-to-Dog-Aggression-Aggressive-Dog-Bite-Biting-Dog

So basically I would like to say that often in life there are no simple explanations and just because something makes or doesn't makes sense to us, doesn't means it will also make sense or not make sense for that matter, to our dogs.
And again, I am not saying others are wrong and I am right. I am simply explaining my thoughts.


----------



## RCloud (Feb 25, 2011)

Just curious of the out come of the trial and dog. Any updates, OP?


----------

