sandgrubber

Some of us have to be bitten once to be wise the second time. I don't think a bite is so much worse than falling out of a tree, crashing your bicycle, or getting your hand caught in the car door when your brother/sister slammed it on you, or any of the other little painful incidents that happen to kids when you allow them a little freedom. Reality occasionally draws blood and breaks bones. Kids heal rapidly. As I've said before, I think the problem is the use of the word 'maul' when 'bite' would be more accurate. There are dangerous dogs who might kill a child. Identifying, castrating, and confining such dogs should be a social priority. But most of the dogs who bite are basically harmless, with zero chance of escalating to a life-threatening attack. It is very sad for all dog lovers that the media is unable to distinguish between dangerous dogs and dogs that will bite if they are pushed too far.

Also, pick your weather. Many dogs are happy to get in the water on a HOT day, but reticent when it's cold.

That level of aggression at 12 months is worrisome. I can see why the owners had him pts. I've been reading dog ordinances in various places. Some US 'shires' (ie, counties or in a few places, boroughs) have mandatory desexing for dogs who cause trouble or are found wandering at large. Often there are escape clauses for first offenders, pedigree dogs, police dogs, etc. Repeat offenses usually result in the dog being desexed (if they got through an escape clause the first time around) or pts. I have mixed feelings about government intervention in dog ownership, cause often the politicians do it so badly. But it seems like this sort of ordinance would have helped in this incident. That is, the offending dog would probably have been desexed, and to the extent his attack was testosterone fueled (which may have been zero) the attack would have less likely. Even if testosterone wasn't a factor, the owners would have been given a strong message. Yes, owners, and breeders who breed unstable dogs, are ultimately responsible. But lax enforcement, and an all or nothing (warnings, then pts) penalty system make it easier for owners to do the wrong thing. Desexing aggressive or uncontrolled dogs at least removes dubious bloodlines from the gene pool.

You might try a totally different tactic and invite her over to feed your dogs properly. Go through the dinner time ritual, etc. If you do it right it will be a little embarrassing for her, and maybe she'll see the light. Maybe a dumb idea . . . who knows.

Basically every single fruit they have tried except the stuff which is actually dangerous to them like grapes The grapes thing is something of a myth. Yes, there are documented incidents of dogs having kidney failure after eating grapes. I've got 7 acres of grapes. The only way I could keep the dogs from eating grapes at harvest time is to keep them indoors 24/7. Which I don't. I have no idea of how many grapes they eat at harvest, but I wouldn't be surprised if they eat half a kg/day. I've asked on various grape-grower forums whether anyone's ever had problems with their dogs getting sick from eating grapes. No one has. My guess is it's a little like peanuts and kids. Yes, a few react badly. But it's a very few. . . . one in a thousand. For the rest, it's harmless.

Horrible story. Well told. So sad for everyone involved, and the poor pup. Wish there were a good way of getting it out to the people who need to hear it. Maybe a 'this could happen to you' U-Tube clip or something?

I've never owned a Dobe, but have shared homes with them on two occasions, and looked after several in kennels. Dobies are wonderful dogs, particularly if you like athletic, precise, obedient, trainable, almost military attitude in a dog. They are loyal, clean, and in my experience, non-destructive. The ones I've known haven't been cuddly, but not stand-offish either. They are what I'd call manageably protective. Their attitude tends to be one of guarding, but the ones I've known are quick to recognise who is a friend of the family and 'allowed' . . . as contrasted to the insanely protective dogs who make a life project of trying to get the mailman. People find Dobies frightening, which enhances their value as a guardian, but may cause social difficulties. One of the Dobes I have known well was supposedly bred to be non-aggressive, and was the most gun-shy, skittery dog I've ever met. If you dropped a frying pan, the dog would be found quivering under the bed on the second floor. This is not at all typical of the breed. Point being, do screen for temperament. Dobermans suffer from some serious genetic diseases, many of which can be tested for. If you do decide on a Dobe, make sure you understand these, and only consider a breeder who tests. Look for a pedigree of long-lived dogs.

Yes, that must be it. Thanks for pointing it out to me. Cheers, Sylvia anytime. Btw, lilli, what has been your experience with re-homing dogs that, for one reason or another didn't work out? I'd guess that the large guardian breeds, being dogs that aren't recommended for beginners, and that require careful management because they tend to be protective and extremely loyal to their owner, can be difficult to re-home . . . and are very likely to fail temperament screening in a dog rescue organisation.

Hard to overfeed yoghurt. For people with large or multiple dogs, you can do it cheaply. Get an EasyYo system and make your own using some Greek yoghurt as starter. You can use powdered milk as a base. It's simple. Dogs love it. (I haven't done this for a long time . . . must get back into it).

This very much sums up where I'm coming from. I don't intend to comment on the particular case, because nobody knows, including the OP, what the truth of the situation is. I simply reacted to the idea that there is no obligation on a breeder to take back a dog they have bred. I don't accept that idea. Yes, people's situations change and sometimes there is a physical impediment to the original breeder actually taking the dog back into their home, however there are many other ways to be actively involved in ensuring a new home is found for the dog asap. In my experience in rescue, there are far too many breeders that are happy to take the dollars when the pups turn eight weeks, however eight months, two years, five years down the track, they can't help. Often, the dog is having to be rehomed because the choice of home wasn't suitable in the first place, responsibility for which lies squarely in the breeders' lap. When I end up with a dog being surrendered that has papers and I call the breeder to tell them a pup of theirs is in rescue, I get "So...??" Once, I was even told "oh, I couldn't possibly take the dog back, I've got two litters on the ground and haven't time or space!" As you can tell, I tend to have a fairly jaundiced view of some breeders. This is not the case at all. But I guess you are green to putting dogs/pups in homes and dont have the experience to know better. Oops! Guess you don't know who you're responding to. Presuming that Zenchel is the kennel name as well as the DOL name, it's hard to find a more experienced, informed, and conscientious breeder.

Good no breed was named. A shame that the word 'mauled' was used. Why can't they just say 'bitten'?

I got a good bite in the face at about that age and had to be stitched up. I still have a tiny scar. The dog was an Irish Setter. I don't think I got mauled . . . I just crossed the line somehow and the dog struck. I'm glad that all the adults involved accepted it as an unfortunate incident, and that the dog wasn't disciplined, much less pts'd. My father, who was supposedly in charge at the time, may have been a little more cautious afterward, though I sort of doubt it. I don't think it's kind to the child to pts the dog. Very likely she'll end out feeling guilty. I would have if the dog who bit me had been pts.

Below are some reader comment from the New Haven Register story on the incident. I agree with the moral people are drawing from this story, but I think it's the wrong moral to draw from this particular tragedy. http://www.nhregister.com/articles/2011/09/30/news/doc4e8672133b2e6645944751.txt?viewmode=comments Neighborhood mess wrote on Sep 30, 2011 11:30 PM: " This whole neighborhood is turning into a ghetto. I have a friend (wish she'd move) who unfortunatley lives on the next street. This whole neighborhood is loaded with pit-bulls and other attack dogs. The absentee landlords that live elsewhere are also to blame. Most of these drug dealing, pitbull owning thugs have police records and the owners don't care anymore. Just get that apartment rented..who cares cause I don't live in West Haven anyway. The owner of the house is responsible, the owner of the dogs are responsible and most of all this little baby girl's parents are responsible. She didn't have a chance. She was surrounded by idiots. God bless her and may she rest in peace. Poor little innocent angel, what a horrible way to die. Thug brand dogs for thug brain owners. West Haven should enforce some new zoning rules, three family homes should not have that many crazy dogs in it anyway. Where do you think all that waste from them ends up? Oh those poor sanitation workers. Mayor Picard, man up and do the right thing. That whole neighborhood is dangerous now..either no dogs in an apartment, or limit how many killer dogs in one apartment. " thking wrote on Oct 1, 2011 8:43 AM: " The New Haven area is a dump. I always hate the dump marches when somebody is killed just like they will hae for the guy just killed in New Haven. Most likely had a record. While a feel for those people families most brought it on themselves. But this child has done nothing. This is when we need a march. 3 pitbulls is to much to have. Something is wrong there. The good people out number the bad. We need to stand up and take our neighborhoods back. These criminals have no rights. My heart is crying for this child. I really hope parents hug their children today and watch them closely everyday. " TaxJoe wrote on Oct 1, 2011 8:46 AM: " It is beyond me why anyone would own a Pit Bull. " tort for dogs wrote on Oct 1, 2011 8:54 AM: " The owner of that building already had a tort claim against her for dogs, just look it up in the CT court records http://tinyurl.com/3h8bny8 " <a name="074079b4874de0fbcca56f8dee14d350">Somethings Wrong wrote on Oct 1, 2011 9:24 AM: " How the hell do people on Section 8 [housing voucher system for the poor] and food stamps afford to feed 3 pitbulls? "

Great article, though I suspect the real story is more complicated. If you go back and look at the accounts in the local papers you'll find 1. the neighborhood is seriously full of drug activity 2. 'babysitting' isn't exactly accurate . . . I think the parents had absented themselves in a serious way 3. little Erica was left lying on the floor The fuller picture, I think, is of a neglected child in a crumbling social structure. The lessons, with respect to dogs, are correct. But I think the real problem is people. Sometimes things get set up so accidents happen often and early. Abandoning a child to the care of an auntie who lives in a tiny 3rd floor flat with three pit bulls is the root cause here. Kids do it rough in drug-ridden slums. If little Erica hadn't been mauled by the dogs, she might well have ended out dead of an overdose or some other awful thing. And, yes, there's a possibility that these were not the 'waggy' sort of pit bulls, but were dogs deliberately bred/selected/managed to be tough.

I've sent a couple pups to Singapore. Both were to corporate executives, ex pats, who had had Labs before being transferred to Singapore. Both had 'mansion' type accommodation and could provide references of a canine sort. While there are concerns about dogs in Asia, there are also some lovely people who dearly love their dogs, and have the resources to take very good care of them. These people have a hard time finding quality dogs. Costs for a locally bred pedigree dog are likely to be astronomical in Singapore. Where would the Australian pedigree dog world be if the rest of the world took the attitude "too many poisonous snakes . . . and I don't want my puppy to be stuck in quarantine for a whole month"? I'd say, do your homework, but it can be done well. I agree with others. . . use a professional dog shipping company. The paperwork is a pain in the backside.

It may be worth calling for 'best practice' legislation and getting the polis to look how things are done elsewhere. Many locations here (in California) have a three tier system for kennels/breeders. Pets, 'hobby breeders', aka 'dog fanciers' and registered kennels. The 'hobby' breeders require a license, and may be restricted to properties of a certain size, in a certain zone (eg, 1 acre or more, zoned rural or agricultural) and are usually limited to 8 to 12 dogs, depending on where you are. The full commercial kennels generally get regular inspections and have to deal with quite a bit of red tape. Australia seems to be going to a two tier system, with nothing between pets and commercial establishments. That's awful for the pedigree dog community.

I don't see what this has to do with buying online. Plenty of deaf pups get sold face to face, sometimes by an ethical breeder who wasn't aware of the problem. It's not readily apparent that a pup is deaf at 8 weeks . . . and some deafness is late onset. Eg, it may not show up until several months of age.

Interesting links (that Steve posted on microchips). I'm surprised this stuff hasn't come up earlier and more often. Although the text Steve clipped is more dramatic than the scientific studies . . . the scientific studies are worrisome. I think this deserves a new thread. Below is the conclusions, for pet owners, in the summary of scientific studies There have been no large-scale, statistically valid, clinically controlled, experimental studies involving microchip implants in dogs and cats, so we know very little about their long-term safety. However, the fact that we have not seen an epidemic of cancers in pets would suggest that only a small number will be impacted. As the chip-removal procedure may be both costly and invasive, pet owners may wish to leave the implanted microchips intact within their animals unless a problem surfaces. Owners of pets that have been implanted should regularly check the area around the chip for any abnormal lumps or swelling. If something unusual is found, it should be immediately reported to a veterinarian, and tests should be done to rule out cancer. The pet owner may be the key to detecting a problem in the early stages and saving the life of a pet. In the two cases where dogs developed tumors around and attached to implants, it was the owners' astute eye and probing fingers that found the cancers, not the veterinarian. The only indication that there was a problem was the lump; all other laboratory tests came back within normal ranges. If a pet is not currently microchipped, it may be best to keep it that way. It is the opinion of this researcher that all further implantation of pets should be halted until the existing population of chipped dogs is carefully assessed for adverse reactions, including cancer. There are other ways to ensure a pet is returned to its owner in the event it goes missing. A well-made collar and a clear, legible tag with the owner's contact information are effective tools that have worked for generations of pet owners.

it appears there is loads of science to prove microchips cause cancer -steve ???? references, please, or was this sarcasm? (no comment on the grammar or the concept of 'proof' in science)

In my experience, newborns like the front teats, which are easy to grasp, but generally have less milk. Older, hungrier, pups gravitate to the back. The back nipples are harder to grab, but more payola (I think I've hit the tradeoff in my life :D). I haven't dealt with a singleton, so can't advise on how to shift a pup backwards over time. But mastitis is painful. If you watch out for sensitive teats, you should be able to keep ahead of the threat. My guess is that biology will watch over the scene and the pup and dam will work out something healthy if you don't intervene too much. Mostly, when the pups stop sucking, the boobs stop producing. The really ugly cases happen when a bitch has much more milk production than the pup(s) have suck power and the excess milk brings in rot -- or when a really bad mastitis bug gets introduced. If your girl isn't swelling and isn't showing sensitivity, you're probably in the 'safe' zone.

'Doppler' refers to the use of differences of frequency with distance to calculate either signal strength or signal distortion. Astronomers use it to figure out whether galaxies are expanding or contracting. Most familiar example is the change in the sound of a train's whistle as it departs from the station. Broadly speaking, it's part of 'relativity'. If you want a credible response, you're going to have to provide specific links to allow a physicist to evaluate what the hell a 'baby doppler' means in terms of measurements taken. I hate the way commercial enterprises sling science terms around for PR. :banghead:

There could be larger forces at play. I seem to remember some nice doco on cheetahs that showed zero conception when the girls and boys were housed/run together, and a conclusion that cheetahs could be bred in captivity when they separated the boys from the girls and only introduced the boys when the girls were in season.

I'm tired of hearing news reports about dogs attacking children in the news The reporters almost never describe whether and how the child was supervised or educated. Blood hell. Kids need to be educated about dogs. Parents need to be held responsible for inadequate supervision/education of their kids. It sickens me to hear about the dog being pts because, say, it's a timid dog, viewed a kid's hug as an attack, and had a nip at the kid's face. The NEWS isn't handling this issue very well. We need some way to get media and legislative attention refocussed on parent's and dog owner's responsibilities. In 99% of all cases, the fault is with the dog's owners, and the child's parents (or minders). some sweet tempered dogs can turn nasty if they're subjected to onslaught from a poorly minded and badly educated child.

IFFY in the extreme. 'remains in hospital' may have nothing to do with the kid's condition . . . the local quacks may be unavailable over the weekend. 'Facial injuries' could be very serious or some nick of the skin. 'Attacked' could mean all sorts of things . . . sometime ill-behaved kids invite attack. Long ago, I had a dog who was very protective of her anus. She always had a go at vets when he tried to take her temperature unless we muzzled her. She was extremely good with kids . . . playing fetch ad infinitus and lying down on her back and showing belly to the little ones . . .tolerating pulling of ears and tail and other bad things that kids do to dogs. She once came close to attacking a toddler who tried to explore the 'little hole under her tail'. This dog was not at all dangerous. She just had a thing about anal intrusions. Fortunately, in this case, there was adequate supervision and nothing more than a growl happened. But under slightly different circumstances, she would have been a branded as a 'child attacker'. "This dog has obviously been a very loving dog and then unfortunately it's attacked a young child, so it just shows how vigilant one has to be with animals and children." Sad sad sad. It also shows how vigilant one has to be with children around animals. I'd say the onus is equally strong for the child's parents as it is for the dog's owners. How about prosecuting the parents for inadequate supervision instead of killing the dog.

Great news! In my boarding kennel experience, greyhounds are placid sweeties, though some of them are -- and many of them are not --- deeply engrained with an 'get the rabbit' mentality which, in some scenarios, endanger cats and SWF's. With intelligent management, I think even the 'bad' greyhounds who have pretty high visual-stimulus high prey drive, fit into the 'harmless' category. Muzzles are a drag, and I'd say racing greyhounds are near the bottom of the list of social danger concerns. It's nice to see the law lightening up a bit on their management.