Should these dogs who attacked children be destroyed?

These dogs and their actions are the product of their owner. If someone should pay, it is the owner. The dogs’ behaviour can be corrected.

Absolutely the dogs should be destroyed. No matter how much they were not trained by their owner, the dogs should not be allowed to continue to pose such danger to children who had done nothing to antagonise them. I would rate a child’s life over a dog’s any day. The only alternative I can see is to put them in a dog prison in the way you would a dangerous criminal so their life can be spared but they will not injure anyone again.

The reason they have not already been put down is that we have procedures that must be followed before a “taking” of property, and dogs are considered property.

not the dogs fault. destroy their owners!

If a dog did that to one of my kids I would be shooting it myself…......

@ragingloli What do you mean by pay? Do you mean for the hospitalisation of the children or something else?

@chaostheory If the dogs were put in a dog prison, imagine how the parents of the children would feel knowing the dogs were still alive.

That would haunt me every day they were alive.

@dpworkin Yes I understand there must be procedures, but just imagine how the parents’ of these children must be feeling right now, knowing these dogs are still alive, and could ‘potentially’ escape the compound and do the same thing again.

@partyparty That’s true, but better imprisoned than roaming around…..just like human offenders…...

MsP, like most of the comments here…the owners are the problem, not the dogs! Michael Vick’s dogs are a good example. They used the fine money and tried to rehab them and some did not make it..too far gone. Sad deal that human beings will mistreat any animal. If they only thought, “that could be me!” After all, only by chance that we are who we are!

I agree the the owner of the dogs bears the primary responsibility, but I also think that an animal that has shown that sort of ability to attack cannot be rehabilitated and can never be trusted, and so should be destroyed.

If it was a car then that cat would be immediately destroyed. The problem is that dog is considered as as ‘object’ in law,so the one who own them is the one who should be responsible for that.

I agree that the dogs need to be destroyed and the owner needs to be fined and their property investigated to see if anything illegal was going on.. (dog fights, inhospitable conditions, etc).

@syz
If you applied that to humans and there is no reason why you could not, every child should be put to death (“be destroyed”) after they hit another child, because “they can not be rehabilitated”.

@ragingloli Don’t be facetious. Your response is nonsensical. There are degrees of severity, and (as much as I prefer animals to humans) you cannot equate a dog’s life to a child.

Dogs that attack through aggression have that inherent behavior – you can use all the training in the world to make for better behaved dogs, but they still have the inclination and ability to attack. I have a dog who has never bitten but because of his background, has potential to be a fear biter. A fear biter is a very different situation that an animal with prey drive (who wants to kill something smaller or soemthing that runs), but I still take great care to make sure that I control situation in which he may become a risk. But I cannot guarantee that I can prevent his ever biting anyone. If he had prey dirve towards children, I would not be able to take on that risk and responsibility.

i do not think the dogs should be killed because of that, i thnk they should try and be corrected, dogs are not human, they become the way they do because of their owners or people. They probably didnt even know what they were doing is wrong. I realise the severity of the situation and the dogs should not allowed to be roaming free (i am suprised they were to begin with esp in England where its unlikely to see strays….but still, animals are never to blame (in my opinion)

In this case I would support the putting-down of these dogs. However I do think each case should be judged on it’s merits, & that proper procedures should be followed. I certainly wouldn’t support a blanket ruling that every dog that attacked a person, be it a child or adult, should be destroyed.

@syz I don’t think @ragingloli is being nonsensical. He’s exaggerating to make a point, but the point should at least be considered. When do we decide that a human or animal is unsalvagable?

@Dr_Dredd You’ll notice that I did say that there are degrees of severity. I’m not personally familiar with this case, but it doesn’t sound like a “nip” to me. I abhor those who have a knee-jerk “kill it” when an owners irresponsibility results in an injury, but an animal who has acted in this way will be a risk for his entire lifetime.

(When I worked with big cats, one aspect of my job was to try to encourage legislation that made it more difficult to own a big cat as a pet. I was involved in case in which a local man owned a pet tiger, and while on a leash, the tiger attacked and severely mauled his child. Rather than help his bleeding child, he went to his car and got his gun and shot the tiger multiple times. It was still writhing from the wounds when the police arrived and killed it. In this case, the tiger bore absolutely no responsibility. It was a tiger, for fuck’s sake. I hold the father completely responsible [the law did not agree].

But dogs are a domesticated species that lives intimately in our midst. And stories like this one only increase the foolish calls for “breed bans” – animals that act like this put many, many sweet natured pit bulls at risk. Our own shelter will not adopt out pitties, they are automatically destroyed.)

@Dr_Dredd do you own a dog?

we have 7 dogs between my family, i am not a trainer but surely i have enough experience to know that dogs can change and will. Their behaviour (in this case higly aggressive) is due to outside factors. In fact the probably became that way due to their owners, so i believe they can become the way they once were, innocent and correct. I am sure the dog whisperer would agree!

Yes, I do happen to own a dog. Why do you ask, @chian.

And @syz, I agree that the case sounds horrible and the dogs will probably have to be destroyed. I just don’t think that @ragingloli was being ridiculous. :-)

I didn’t read the description or others peoples posts.

I just wanted to say I love how you said destroyed when talking about dogs. Made me laugh. Carry on.

@BoBo1946 Yes I agree with you entirely BUT I am also a parent, and trying to understand this from a parent point of view. How would I feel if this happened to my child?
These dogs (so the news states) escaped from their home, so are the owners still to blame? Do you think certain breeds are more prone to attack? Do you think ALL dogs will be gentle and friendly if treated with kindness as puppies?
Sorry there are lots of questions here!

@syz But it is the dog who has these natural tendencies to attack, or have they been taught this by the owners?

@Doctor_D Perhaps the law is different in the UK, but there have been cases here where the dog or dogs have been destroyed IMMEDIATELY. No question about if or but, they are destroyed. The possibilities of future attacks on children are then taken away.

@Tenpinmaster So are you saying here that certain breeds are more prone to attack? I know it is well known that certain breeds are bred specifically to fight.

@partyparty Dogs can be trained to be aggressive (i.e. guard dogs and fighting dogs), but since I haven’t seen any references to fighting, I suspect that that’s not the case here. Dogs can also have prey drive (the urge to attack small animals, things that make high pitched noises, things that move in a jerky manner, things that run), and that’s hard wired in.

Dogs have been selectively bred for thousands of generations for certain behaviors (rat killing, herding, protection, fighting, sitting in laps) and some of those behaviors in an urban setting equate to aggression. So, yes, some breeds are more prone to attacks.

@Dr_Dredd sorry i made a mistake, i meant to ask that question to @syz

@chian The mauling of the three children happened in California.

@partyparty You can click on “edit this response” to add comments rather than post multiple lines.

@TheJoker What if it was one of your children? Would you feel that same then? I am a parent and a dog owner, but I know if one of my dogs mauled (not just a little nip or snap at someone) then I would want my dog to be destroyed. This upsets me to say this, but I wouldn’t want to run the risk of it happening again.

kill the dogs…and maybe the owners too (just kidding! about the second part)

@syz Thanks for that… I am still learning LOL

Destroyed? Wrong verb. We are talking about animals here. I’m against attack dog breeding.

@partyparty noted thought it doesnt really make a difference whether america or england, strange to see strays.

@partyparty…. in all honesty, probably not. However that’s the point of justice, that it provides a fair & unbiased judgement on a case. It’s not meant to provide revenge or satisfy our natural insticts to protect our young. &, frankly, if a child provoked an animal & it mauled them, then I wouldn’t want the animal destroyed….. obviously in an unprovoced case such as the one illustrated it’a different kettle-of-fish.

The owner of the dogs should be destroyed. Dogs are very responsive to rehabilitation. The owner of the dogs is responsible for what the dogs do, and dogs that are neglected, or worse, raised and used as weapons are like a loaded gun. If a gun goes off and hurts or kills someone, you don’t blame the gun. You blame the fool who loaded the gun. I don’t understand the reaction of people who think the first thing to do is kill the dogs. If it were my kid, the first thing I would want to do is kill the owner.

@mattbrowne I was merely quoting the news article when I used the word ‘destroyed’. Their words not mine. I agree with you that too many dogs are bred for the sole purpose of fighting/attacking.

There is no sense or moral purpose in domesticating animals unless they represent some value to the “owner” and present no to danger to anybody else. At the time a domestic creature harms somebody else, it can no longer be considered domesticated. At that point, it’s status is not really different than a wild jungle beast. Kill it, lock it in a cage- what ever you might do with a lion that escapes the zoo and walks the city streets- you are morally entitled to do with a creature that has been mis-identified as domesticated. Example – the beloved, cute, diaper-wearing chimpanzee that ate off a womans face and hands…

I agree with @TheJoker and 100% with @syz. The decision for me would be determined by the reason why these dogs attacked so viciously because, like @syz said, a prey drive is completely different to fear biting. I don’t believe in destroying an animal simply because it has bitten a person but it sounds like this was an unprovoked attack (from what I hae read about it). Many aggressive dogs can be rehabilitated but there are some that are just too far gone and the risk that they will do it again is just too great. In this individual case I think that the dogs should be euthanized (which is much kinder to the dog than keeping it alive but putting it into a “dog prison” as someone suggested above). As a trainer myself I wouldn’t be comfortable with rehoming a dog that has had such an aggressive past, it would be too much of a risk and the next child it attacks could end up dead.

@partyparty yeah, be sure to keep the site clean! lol

@stump i TOTALLY agree with you

“These dogs and their actions are the product of their owner. If someone should pay, it is the owner”

The owner does pay. By having the dogs, I assume they love, put down.

All right, coming in a little late but whenever dogs are involved, I always have to put my two cents in.

First of all, I would like to point out one very important fact that everyone seems to forget: Dogs are predators. Their instincts and drives may have been severely weakened by centuries of breeding, but they are still predators. Anyone who is surprised that a dog bites them or something of that nature is forgetting this.

Okay, now to answer the question. I do not think the dogs should be killed off the bat note that saying “destroyed” instead of “killed” makes the dogs in question seem less like living creatures and more like things but I do think that are some cases for putting the animals to sleep. This might be one of those cases. However, I think that these dogs should at least try rehabilitation. For all we know, these dogs attacked the people because they were freaked out and scared. I’m not saying it’s right or okay, but in this case, that could be dealt with.

@partyparty I believe so. I defiantly believe that certain breeds are more prone to attack then others. I know in my state they have outlawed having certain breeds as pets. I’m no dog expert but I certainly wouldn’t be surprised if I were keeping a pack of wolves as pets and they attacked someone.

I hate the word “destroy” used in this form.. it sounds like torture.

I hate the word “defiantly”. It is “definitely”, ffs.

I understand the waiting to follow whatever legal procedures are in place and to test for rabies. In my personal opinion, I agree with others the dogs’ behaviors are the responsibility of human owners/trainers but now that they have attacked humans they should be put down. It’s sad to me, I don’t feel the dogs are evil or entirely to blame but now they’ve learned and exhibited dangerous behavior and I don’t think they can be trusted to never do that again.

@rangerr The word ‘destroy’ was used in the news report. I don’t like the word either, but I was quoting what was written.
@hungryhungryhortence Yes, it’s a very sad situation, but as you say, these dogs have exhibited dangerous behaviour, so would they do it again? I am trying to see this situation from both sides as I am a parent, but also own dogs.

@partyparty – Yes, the author of the article used the wrong verb. Buildings are destroyed by earthquakes. Animals are not buildings.

It’s a common phrasing. “Destroyed”, “put down”, “killed”, and “euthanized” are all used interchangeably.

Don’t forget… Getting the Ax.

@syz What about ‘put to sleep’, that sounds much kinder to me

I like, “going to the farm.”

The idea of destroying animals especially mammals is disgusting.

@mattbrowne: I’m just curious, why “especially mammals?”

@mattbrowne Oh dear… now YOU have used the wrong verb LOL

Well, our immune system for example is capable of destroying animals like parasitic flatworms. Destroying breeding places with mosquito larvae also makes sense when fighting malaria. There are many examples where human beings have to protect themselves and this can include simple animals.

Mammals and birds are not parasitic flatworms. They are very complex life forms capable of experiences emotions sometimes even very intelligent like crows.

Terminology is a matter of personal taste. I don’t like attack dogs. But I also don’t like to think of destruction when dealing with the problem. Selective breeding will do the job. No more killer puppies.

@mattbrowne Do you think certain breeds are more prone to attack than others? Any particular breed(s) of dog in mind?

Thanks for all your answers. Very differing viewpoints.

I would have liked to have heard from owners of Mastiffs or Pit bulls, to see what they think of my question.

Anyone out there like to answer?

They should also stop breeding ugly dogs.
Pugs for example. Truly disgusting. their faces look like rotten, moldy leather. But worst of all, people think they are cute. Ugh.

I think we should start using Dogs and Cats as another food source.

@ChazMaz
Leave the cats alone, I am warning you.

I’m not a dog expert. But there are experts and they also have access to studies and statistics, correlating breed with incidents.

Pit fighting breeds, such as Pit Bulls, were historically selectively bred to eliminate the will to submit in a fight.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attack_dog

@partyparty: I don’t own mastiffs but I have a good friend who has two. I’ve spent some time around these dogs and I think a big problem with mastiffs is they don’t know how big they are. They see other dogs and think they are the same size. When a Labrador not a small dog, I know, but much smaller than a mastiff jumps on someone, that person will probably be okay. However, a mastiff could take down a large, tall man with the same action. Mastiffs are not dangerous dogs, they are just large. also, they tend to invoke a fear response in people which, in turn, can invoke their own predatory sense. a well trained mastiff might do nothing more than bark, but a badly trained mastiff might give chase or “attack.” Even if a mastiff doesn’t bite anyone, 150 pounds of dog slamming into will hurt you pretty badly. The same actions in, say, a terrier are not as devastating.

I hope that helped. :)

@KatawaGrey Thanks for that. At last I am getting answers about these breeds of dogs who mauled these children.
About your last sentence… have you ever been bitten on the ankles by a terrier? Not very nice LOLL

@partyparty: I had a Westy for the first 10 years of my life. I know about terriers. :) If he bugged us, we’d just pick him up!

OK… OK… NO cats..

@KatawaGrey We do the same thing with my bichon frise. She hates it, of course, and will try to squirm away… even if she’s several feet up in the air!

We sometimes call her “ankle-biter” to her face. :-)