Golden Retriever Attacks 4 People

[Crisovar]

The dog looks more like a Maremma to me. The coat is far too woolly for a GR. There was a Maremma that frequented an off-leash park near me that was notorioius for attacking other dogs. Of course, the owner couldn't care less and kept on bringing it back...

It looks nothing like a Maremma, it looks like a fluffy (poss from being clipped) aged and quite distressed golden from the photos and footage I have seen.

[RottnBullies]

I agree with having more Investigations done In all dog attacks, regardless of breeds.

PTS straight away Is just masking the problem, however I don't think It's done when It comes to "other" certain breeds which I think Is wrong

ETA: Coz I can't spell

Edited March 26, 2011 by RottnBullies

[Staranais]

I agree with having more Investigations done In all dog attacks, regardless of breeds.

PTS straight away Is just masking the problem, however It don't think It's done when It come to "other" certain breeds which I think Is wrong

It's got to start somewhere, RottnBullies. If they can manage to get to a sensible decision about what to do with this dog rather than the usual knee-jerk reaction of "kill it", it will set a precedent that can hopefully be extended to other breeds and all dogs later on.

[RottnBullies]

I hope so Staranais

If anyone Is Interested there Is a page been set up for Buster I've just joined

A Fair Go For Buster

ETA: It's on FaceBook

Edited March 26, 2011 by RottnBullies

[Clyde]

The dog looks more like a Maremma to me. The coat is far too woolly for a GR. There was a Maremma that frequented an off-leash park near me that was notorioius for attacking other dogs. Of course, the owner couldn't care less and kept on bringing it back...

It looks nothing like a Maremma,

I agree!!

[JoeK]

Hahah Diva living up to your name?

Am I not allowed to state my protest just as you? Am I not allowed to point out the bias in the media as well as on this forum? Am I not entitled to post? Because it upsets you or (others) I should not post my detest? I was stating a factual point and you dismiss me because you're sick of hearing it?

I did not just say pitbull, I mentioned them I also mentioned dobermans, rotties and said ETC. As in anything other than a 'family' known breed.

I am thinking the Pitbulls should be locked in a cage from the legislation, shouldnt be run around in the yard so couple more laws come to the place with the Pitbull attack. Other thing when a dog attcking the owner of the owner property, different story than he running on the street and attack somebody because nobody making complaint against the dog makes a difference how the situation is taking into account too. If no ambulances involved, probably nobody know of the attack and nothing happens.

Joe

[JoeK]

Thankyou half the words, you obviously have more than half a brain

And also to Trisven thankyou. I'm assuming you own a g.r and you still made a very well spoken statement.

Please don't misconstrue my words not all dogs that attack a human should be PTS effing durrrrr? Minus the situations where a dog is provoked (abusively and not just a child pulling a dog's tail) , where a human steps onto a dogs property, where a human threatens a dogs owner, when a dog is protecting a human OBVIOUSLY there is a million and one exceptions within reason. BUT this dog was NOT doing any of these things. I don't trust the news (or its facts) but from the story the family was fighting, the police were called for a domestic disturbance call then something happened to the dog and the dog snapped and attacked. By something I don't necessarily mean someone touched the dog but something happened and the dog turned on it's owner and THREE other people.

The dog attacked four people. That is ground for euthanasia to me? Just because the owner does not want the dog put down it does not mean the dog should not be put down. I understand there MAY be extenuating circumstances but the fact of the matter is. Are these people equipped to now own a dog which if not put down should be declared dangerous? So what if it's not a medical problem? If Steve assess the dog then what? The dog gets rehabilitated or attempted to or given on to another family because the training is to much for the old owners? I am not going to pass judgement or assume to kow the family in anyway so I will not dismiss that they may do all this. But if they don't? Then what? The dog goes to another family to snap again? Or goes to the shelter to be PTS anyway?

He attack 4 people, but what did the people do on the first bite to the dog?. Did they say good boy give him a pat, or did one of the peoples give him a belting because he bite, or maybe 4 people try and fight the dog and he switch into defense drive in the fear response thinking the people going to kill him. It's fair for the dog to defend himself, maybe the people not handle the situation best and making the dog attack we dont know this? He may have just growl first then one people smack him and start from there, maybe nothing wrong with the dog other than he live with a house of dickheads perhaps?

A dog he must not bite the human is a law the dog he dont read the law and know that, hes a dog and he bite under the stress can happen, no dog has exempting to this when the buttons is pressed to cause him to a reaction, yes.

Joe

[aussielover]

apparently the dog and the owners had been threatened by a man with a knife a fews days before, so the dog was possibly feeling a bit threatened and out of sorts. The two younger men (brothers ) were fighting in the house which is what triggered the dog to attack. so it seems there is a little more to this....

more info

[jackie_a1]

People are misinterpreting what I am saying. What I am saying is THIS particular dog the dog as an individual should be put down. I never said all dogs that attack people should be euthanised because there are obviously exceptions. What I did say was human aggression in dogs should never be acceptable and that this dog attacked and injured four people which for me regardless is already justification for euthanasia. Because think of it logically, and be realistic. DOGS should not be human aggressive. There is a HUGE difference between animal aggression and human aggression. I do not mean dogs that will snap at humans through fear, or anxiety because at the end of the day most dogs will. I am talking about out right human aggression. A dog that isn't snapping or reacting through action a dog that is human aggressive. A dog thats aggression is purely targeted at humans, a dog that you would not feel comfortable waling past, a dog that you would be terrified having a child near simply because a human aggressive dog will attack humans. Therefore NO DOG should be human aggressive. Obviously as the story unfolds it SEEMS the dog was reacting but it injured and bit FOUR people.

So Steve or someone else assesses the dog and they say ok he snapped because he was fear aggressive. It was not an outright attack, the dog will need an experienced trainer and handler and someone who is able to safely contain this dog because regardless it has attacked before and ANYTHING can trigger it again. Who is gonna put there hand up for that one? And people on this forum please don't answer because you are dog people you have the experience to create confidence. Do you think the owners are experienced or have any idea on how to own and contain the dog safely? The owners probably headed towards a g.r because of its reputation as a family dog and because most people think they will own a lab or g.r stick it in the yard and he will train himself. He'll be just like the guide dogs we see calm and stable.

The point I'm trying to get at is this dog will receive temperament assessment yes? Or at least has the option? Why not provide ALL dogs and dog attacks that same privilege? Why?

So to all the DOL'ers claiming I am complaining answer this question and address it for me.

Why did THIS dog in particular receive the option for temperament assessment and training and other dog attacks similar do not get the same treatment? If you want to go into specifics and say it is because the dog may not have attacked but 'reacted' then why not all the other cases of dogs that have attacked or behaved similarly? They would have obviously had to investigate to get the information that the dog attack may have been provoked. So why not investigate the bullies or mastiffs etc? Because if it was a bull breed there is always the ASSUMPTION that the dog attacked unprovoked because of it's reputation. A reputation that people like YOU adhere to merely because if I speak up for my breed I am complaining.

How dare you dismiss me because people are sick of hearing it. I'm sick of all the numbers of dogs being euthanised at the pound but I better not say it because there has been a million posts on this board prior regarding it and we don't need to keep hearing it? That is the justification of your posts? Stop whining about BSL and breed prejudice cause there is nothing you can do about it and we're sick of hearing it.

Like I say believe in nothing fall for anything.

[Remarkabull]

Thankyou half the words, you obviously have more than half a brain

And also to Trisven thankyou. I'm assuming you own a g.r and you still made a very well spoken statement.

Please don't misconstrue my words not all dogs that attack a human should be PTS effing durrrrr? Minus the situations where a dog is provoked (abusively and not just a child pulling a dog's tail) , where a human steps onto a dogs property, where a human threatens a dogs owner, when a dog is protecting a human OBVIOUSLY there is a million and one exceptions within reason. BUT this dog was NOT doing any of these things. I don't trust the news (or its facts) but from the story the family was fighting, the police were called for a domestic disturbance call then something happened to the dog and the dog snapped and attacked. By something I don't necessarily mean someone touched the dog but something happened and the dog turned on it's owner and THREE other people.

The dog attacked four people. That is ground for euthanasia to me? Just because the owner does not want the dog put down it does not mean the dog should not be put down. I understand there MAY be extenuating circumstances but the fact of the matter is. Are these people equipped to now own a dog which if not put down should be declared dangerous? So what if it's not a medical problem? If Steve assess the dog then what? The dog gets rehabilitated or attempted to or given on to another family because the training is to much for the old owners? I am not going to pass judgement or assume to kow the family in anyway so I will not dismiss that they may do all this. But if they don't? Then what? The dog goes to another family to snap again? Or goes to the shelter to be PTS anyway?

He attack 4 people, but what did the people do on the first bite to the dog?. Did they say good boy give him a pat, or did one of the peoples give him a belting because he bite, or maybe 4 people try and fight the dog and he switch into defense drive in the fear response thinking the people going to kill him. It's fair for the dog to defend himself, maybe the people not handle the situation best and making the dog attack we dont know this? He may have just growl first then one people smack him and start from there, maybe nothing wrong with the dog other than he live with a house of dickheads perhaps?

A dog he must not bite the human is a law the dog he dont read the law and know that, hes a dog and he bite under the stress can happen, no dog has exempting to this when the buttons is pressed to cause him to a reaction, yes.

Joe

Agree with this. We don't know what happened to set this dog off. I can tell you now that I've had dogs that would never bite a human, no matter what was done to them, but I have also had dogs (that have been wonderful, obedient family pets) that would never allow themselves to be abused by a person, myself included. If anyone had tried to really lay into them then they would defend themselves, aggressively if necessary, as I believe they have every right to do.

Maybe this dog is a nasty dog who is unstable and should be PTS, but maybe it is a dog that was put under alot of stress or was backed into a corner and felt like it had to protect itself. I think it should be assessed before PTS and a full investigation into what happened just prior to the 'attack' should also happen and be taken into account before condemning this particular dog.

ETA I think that almost all cases of 'attacks' should have this happen before PTS, not just this one because of it's breed.

Edited March 27, 2011 by dobesrock

[huski]

People are misinterpreting what I am saying. What I am saying is THIS particular dog the dog as an individual should be put down.

I find it amazing that you know so much about this individual dog without ever having actually met it to assess it's behaviour.

How do you know more about this dog and it's behaviour than any one of us?

ETA: IMO, which I have stated several times, ALL dogs involved in attacks like these should have a behaviourial assessment done. Your post makes no sense to me though Jackie - first you say human aggressive dogs should all be PTS (unless they fit whatever whacky criteria you think makes their display of aggression 'ok') and then you say we have too many dogs PTS

Edited March 27, 2011 by huski

[aussielover]

Jackie, the reason this dog is getting a chance at a behavoiural assessment and rehab is that it is an older dog with no previous history of aggression where even the "victims" including the neighbours, have said this behaviour was completely out of character and have called for the dog not to be put down.

It appears this dog really was a loved family pet, unlike in many other instances where the dog was actually a "guard" dog or backyard furnishing or a dog/s that were roaming the streets.

Would you say the dog should be put down, even if there was a chance of the dog being rehabilitated?

Perhaps if it were your dog, you would not give it a chance, but I don't think it is right of you to judge that the owners wouldn't be capable of helping the dog given the right guidance from a professional like K9pro etc. Especially considering you don't know the owner or the dog in question at all.

[BJean]

apparently the dog and the owners had been threatened by a man with a knife a fews days before, so the dog was possibly feeling a bit threatened and out of sorts. The two younger men (brothers ) were fighting in the house which is what triggered the dog to attack. so it seems there is a little more to this....

more info

Just makes the dog sound more unreliable and not suited.

Most dog attacks happen in the home of the dog and to those it knows.

But its a Golden Reriever!

They dont attack.

Must be some other obscure reason

this cant be what it seems at all

[BJean]

Jackie, the reason this dog is getting a chance at a behavoiural assessment and rehab is that it is an older dog with no previous history of aggression where even the "victims" including the neighbours, have said this behaviour was completely out of character and have called for the dog not to be put down.

It appears this dog really was a loved family pet, unlike in many other instances where the dog was actually a "guard" dog or backyard furnishing or a dog/s that were roaming the streets.

What is a "guard" dog?

[aussielover]

why do you think it attacked lilli?

[aussielover]

Jackie, the reason this dog is getting a chance at a behavoiural assessment and rehab is that it is an older dog with no previous history of aggression where even the "victims" including the neighbours, have said this behaviour was completely out of character and have called for the dog not to be put down.

It appears this dog really was a loved family pet, unlike in many other instances where the dog was actually a "guard" dog or backyard furnishing or a dog/s that were roaming the streets.

What is a "guard" dog?

A dog that is bought for the sole purpose of guarding a home, but isn't provided with any training and encouraged to be aggressive towards strangers. The owner generally has little interaction with the dog and has little control over it. The dog is often confined on a chain or some sort of tether system.

a true guard dog has been trained by someone experienced and/or qualified to produce a security animal. The dog has been tested to ensure that it has good nerves so it is actually guaranteed to rise to the occasion (ie attack) when required. It has a good bond with the handler, who has full control over it.

[aussielover]

Just makes the dog sound more unreliable and not suited.

Most dog attacks happen in the home of the dog and to those it knows.

But its a Golden Reriever!

They dont attack.

Must be some other obscure reason

this cant be what it seems at all

Of course it is shocking that a GR has attacked 4 people!

GRs are known for their wonderful temperament, role as assistance dogs and role as a family pet.

They generally have a very forgiving temperament.

Surely you can see why the public find it so shocking?

Unfortunately there are some poorly bred ones that are known for resource guarding and fear aggression.

I think we should let a professional assess why this dog attacked before we jump to any conclusions or PTS.

[jackie_a1]

Huski don't try to demean my intelligence through your jaded interpretation.

By too many dogs being out to sleep I was using the pound as an example of a subject that is always brought up, but no one says well stop whining it happens etc. I just used the pound example as an example to a dog subject that others also feel strongly about but don't get told to drop it or that they are sick of hearing about the subject. That is all I am going with that part. I could have used puppy mills as an example get what I mean? I am saying other subjects involving dogs are also brought also complained about also debated so why am I being told to drop it? Am I not entitled to also defend my breed?

Huski, by exceptions I mean and if you took the time to actually read my posts I use examples such as a provoked attack, a dog being tormented that turns around and retaliates, a dog protecting it's property, a dog protecting it's owner why do I have to reiterate because you're too lazy to read. That are my definitions of exceptions and there are probably a million more but I also do think it depends on the damage done. Someone earlier made a good point that attack varies from bite and it generally does get misused [the term].

The dogs that should be put to sleep are dogs with outright human aggression, a dog attacking without provocation etc. They are unstable and unsuitable to be rehomed and should be put to sleep for both the dogs safety and of course humans.

To the comment if it were my dog. FIRSTLY let me tell you. If my dog EVER EVER attacked any human UNPROVOKED (so without reason just attacked someone) I would take my dog to the vet and have him euthanised. Either or both of them without hesitation. No question. There is no excuse for trying to make excuses. I would have to admit that I failed in raising a stable friendly dog and the consequences to that are someone was attacked and it would be irresponsible of me to try and rehome rehabilitate or assess my dogs they attacked uprovoked and for no reason and hurt someone. But I have faith in my dogs that they would NEVER attack anyone unprovoked. Now I said faith not psychic ability so I cannot predict it will never happen but I can guarantee it won't.

The fact that it never attacked before please. Tell me how many times you heard of another breed attacking and the owners say,

'He is always friendly! He's never attacked before!!!'

What we define as aggression a person who is inexperienced may not and may have simply missed the warning signs.

[BJean]

Jackie, the reason this dog is getting a chance at a behavoiural assessment and rehab is that it is an older dog with no previous history of aggression where even the "victims" including the neighbours, have said this behaviour was completely out of character and have called for the dog not to be put down.

It appears this dog really was a loved family pet, unlike in many other instances where the dog was actually a "guard" dog or backyard furnishing or a dog/s that were roaming the streets.

What is a "guard" dog?

A dog that is bought for the sole purpose of guarding a home, but isn't provided with any training and encouraged to be aggressive towards strangers. The owner generally has little interaction with the dog and has little control over it. The dog is often confined on a chain or some sort of tether system.

a true guard dog has been trained by someone experienced and/or qualified to produce a security animal. The dog has been tested to ensure that it has good nerves so it is actually guaranteed to rise to the occasion (ie attack) when required. It has a good bond with the handler, who has full control over it.

You've mentioned dogs that are poorly cared for and professional working dogs mostly GSDs, rotts and mals..

You've left out the many guardian breeds like Bullmastiff, Cane corso, Central Asian

that are bought to be both household guardian and are not trained to be security animals.

Yet they will guard.

Lots of dogs are bought with the main purpose to guard the home.

It would not be unusual for these to attack their owner like the GR did?

[BJean]

Just makes the dog sound more unreliable and not suited.

Most dog attacks happen in the home of the dog and to those it knows.

But its a Golden Reriever!

They dont attack.

Must be some other obscure reason

this cant be what it seems at all

Of course it is shocking that a GR has attacked 4 people!

GRs are known for their wonderful temperament, role as assistance dogs and role as a family pet.

They generally have a very forgiving temperament.

Surely you can see why the public find it so shocking?

Unfortunately there are some poorly bred ones that are known for resource guarding and fear aggression.

I think we should let a professional assess why this dog attacked before we jump to any conclusions or PTS.

A large dog that attacked four of its own family -

yet because the dog is a GR not a guard breed

there is an outpouring of disbelief and a determination to find out why the dog did what it did.

Because a GR just being poorly bred with poor nerve, poor reactivity just isn't a likely possibility.

I dont believe for one iota that this will translate later, to all attacks being investigated the same way.

It only reinforces the status quo.

That there are good breeds and bad breeds.

Edited March 27, 2011 by lilli